Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Shropshire North – nine days to go – politicalbetting.com

1234689

Comments

  • Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.

    Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
    This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
    Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,814

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    I thought they missed some potential to have fun in Bridgeton - make it turn out that the Duke had built ((re-built) his family fortune in the sugar trade.....
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383
    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    People always say that, but it's never been true.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    Carnyx said:

    Aslan said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
    If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
    First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.

    Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
    Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
    Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    The honours still refer to the Empire.

    It isn't over.
    Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
    Are Cornwall and Yorkshire colonies too?
    Not in that sense, as they don't have different legal systems fromk the rest of England. In otgher senses, for instance in the way in which their economies are managed overall, possibly, but I wouldn't wish to presume on what the locals might think.
    They get more net investment from the Treasury than the Treasury gets from them in tax revenue. Same applies for Scotland and every UK region apart from London, the South East and East
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 895
    Carnyx said:

    Aslan said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
    If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
    First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.

    Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
    Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
    Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    The honours still refer to the Empire.

    It isn't over.
    Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
    Are Cornwall and Yorkshire colonies too?
    Not in that sense, as they don't have different legal systems fromk the rest of England. In otgher senses, for instance in the way in which their economies are managed overall, possibly, but I wouldn't wish to presume on what the locals might think.
    So not having your own legal system is less colonialism than having your own legal system? You nationalists do contort yourselves into ridiculous positions.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,476

    Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.

    Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
    This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
    Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
    Is 1984 overtly ideological? My objection to Orwell is that he gives very little clue as to what he is actually for rather than against. What is Orwellism?
  • AslanAslan Posts: 895

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    People are prosecuted for not paying the license fee. How is that not illegal?
  • Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466
    Aslan said:

    Carnyx said:

    Aslan said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
    If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
    First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.

    Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
    Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
    Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    The honours still refer to the Empire.

    It isn't over.
    Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
    Are Cornwall and Yorkshire colonies too?
    Not in that sense, as they don't have different legal systems fromk the rest of England. In otgher senses, for instance in the way in which their economies are managed overall, possibly, but I wouldn't wish to presume on what the locals might think.
    So not having your own legal system is less colonialism than having your own legal system? You nationalists do contort yourselves into ridiculous positions.
    No, you've misunderstood. Having your ownj legal system controlled by the neighbours is more colonial than having the same legal system with the neighbours. To give a good and specific example, Westminster did rather little about eliminating feudal land law in Scotland till the Scottish Parliament was reconvened and dealt with the matter.
  • Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    I thought they missed some potential to have fun in Bridgeton - make it turn out that the Duke had built ((re-built) his family fortune in the sugar trade.....
    I've only watched the first episode of Bridgerton and I found the dialogue really clunky, although I liked it more than a lot of other costume dramas, such as the utterly awful (and highly ideological) Downton Abbey. Does it improve?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,814

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    One of the best scenes in new Doctor Who was the last Dalek telling the Doctor that he would make a good Dalek.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
    If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
    First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.

    Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
    Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
    Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    The honours still refer to the Empire.

    It isn't over.
    Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
    On your definition then in 1964 and 1974 (and maybe 2023/4?) England was a colony of Scotland. As then England voted Tory but got Labour governments thanks to Scottish MPs
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383
    edited December 2021

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    I thought they missed some potential to have fun in Bridgeton - make it turn out that the Duke had built ((re-built) his family fortune in the sugar trade.....
    Would have been a fascinating way to smuggle Haitian history into it, if they could get around the French/UK thing and the slight anachronism of it happening 20 years earlier. The cross-cutting of race and class that fuelled that particular period of history was really interesting.
    But Bridgerton isn't an ambitious program, and deserves to be criticised in the strongest terms for simply being shit.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    I do have sympathy with that view - it's far more of a corporate partial monopoly funded by a tax on TV reception, like the good old days of tax farming.
  • Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    One of the best scenes in new Doctor Who was the last Dalek telling the Doctor that he would make a good Dalek.
    I've not seen any of the new Doctor Whos because my eldest daughter found it too scary.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,427

    Nationalism has nothing to do with enemies, real or perceived.

    Some people can use "enemies" to exploit things, but then so can almost any philosophy and the "enemy within" is often more hated than the external one. Hence the long-running People's Front of Judea meme: the heretic is worse than the infidel.

    Nationalism at its core is little more than self-determination, it is the belief that one's own nation should be running itself. At their core, almost everyone on the planet is a nationalist, just the definition of nation may vary.

    People like to act like the opposite of nationalism is globalism, but almost nobody actually wants a completely global world government and there is little more horrific a concept than that to me. The opposite of nationalism in reality is often imperialism - the belief that a nation should be ruled by another nation, instead of their own.

    Hence why Gandhi was a nationalist. He believed India should be ruled by Indians rather than Britons.

    To define nationalism as meaning only a belief in national self-rule strips it of all interest as a topic of debate. It's a bit like saying socialism means a belief in fairness or capitalism means a belief in wealth creation.

    The Nazis, Trump, MAGA, Golden Dawn, BNP, AfD, Zemmour, LePen, Northern League, Bolsonaro, Orban, many and varied 'National Fronts' and populist (usually right but sometimes left) strongman leaders in many and varied places over the years - all of these people and parties and movements believe or believed in a great deal more than national self-rule.

    Common theme? Fear and loathing of others. This is what 'bad' nationalism - which is a great deal of it, today and historically - is based upon above all else.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,814
    edited December 2021

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    I thought they missed some potential to have fun in Bridgeton - make it turn out that the Duke had built ((re-built) his family fortune in the sugar trade.....
    I've only watched the first episode of Bridgerton and I found the dialogue really clunky, although I liked it more than a lot of other costume dramas, such as the utterly awful (and highly ideological) Downton Abbey. Does it improve?
    No idea - the trauma of watching the first ten minutes caused me to run away to a remote South East Asian rain forest where I recruited the local tribesmen into a fearful cannibal army and deliver weird soliloquies in the rain.
  • David Tennant as Phileas Fogg? That could be fun.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    ping said:

    The most bizarre take yet of the Arthur Labibjo-Hughes horror;

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10281731/amp/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Football-clapping-Arthur-Labinjo-Hughes-display-virtue-signalling.html

    Seriously Mr Littlejohn? THAT is your contribution?

    “ I have absolutely no intention of repeating the gruesome details, largely because I refused to read them in the first place.”

    Fair enough, you might think. But you’re being paid to write about Arthur’s death. And then..

    “ what this column wants to address is the calculated exploitation of this tragedy by football clubs and directors desperate to burnish their 'caring' credentials.

    Had this 'tribute' been a spontaneous gesture by genuinely horrified spectators it may have been understandable. But it was nothing of the sort.

    This was another stage-managed display of shameless virtue-signalling by a venal, amoral industry which insists on clambering aboard every passing bandwagon, from anti-racism to trans rights.”

    Fuck off mr Littlejohn. Every single football fan that clapped is a better person than you.

    Just fuck off and get another job.

    He has his finger on the pulse of UK current affairs.
    From his home in Florida.
  • Hurrah for the BBC.

    The BBC will have digital in-play clips for UK users within its live coverage of the men's Ashes when the iconic cricketing battle between England and Australia resumes on Wednesday, 8 December.

    In addition to ball-by-ball Test Match Special commentary, the BBC has also secured rights to a daily highlights show.

    The highlights show, which will be available on BBC iPlayer, will bring UK viewers all of the latest from the series daily at 17:00 GMT as England try to end the decade-long stretch since their last series win down under.

    In addition to the digital clips, the BBC Sport website and app will have a short catch-up service when UK-based fans wake each morning.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59443111
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    People are prosecuted for not paying the license fee. How is that not illegal?
    See my original post.
  • dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    The most bizarre take yet of the Arthur Labibjo-Hughes horror;

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10281731/amp/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Football-clapping-Arthur-Labinjo-Hughes-display-virtue-signalling.html

    Seriously Mr Littlejohn? THAT is your contribution?

    “ I have absolutely no intention of repeating the gruesome details, largely because I refused to read them in the first place.”

    Fair enough, you might think. But you’re being paid to write about Arthur’s death. And then..

    “ what this column wants to address is the calculated exploitation of this tragedy by football clubs and directors desperate to burnish their 'caring' credentials.

    Had this 'tribute' been a spontaneous gesture by genuinely horrified spectators it may have been understandable. But it was nothing of the sort.

    This was another stage-managed display of shameless virtue-signalling by a venal, amoral industry which insists on clambering aboard every passing bandwagon, from anti-racism to trans rights.”

    Fuck off mr Littlejohn. Every single football fan that clapped is a better person than you.

    Just fuck off and get another job.

    He has his finger on the pulse of UK current affairs.
    From his home in Florida.
    Didn't he criticise people who worked from home during Covid-19 despite the fact he has worked from home for years?
  • AslanAslan Posts: 895

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    A public service is a different thing to a public good.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
    If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
    First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.

    Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
    Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
    Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    The honours still refer to the Empire.

    It isn't over.
    Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
    On your definition then in 1964 and 1974 (and maybe 2023/4?) England was a colony of Scotland. As then England voted Tory but got Labour governments thanks to Scottish MPs
    You also need to factor in the Welsh who had the same legal system as England, so your arithmetic might be out.

    But even if the English didn't then completely control their own laws, the asymmetry meant that the problem was much worse for Scotland. All you can adduce since the middle of the 20th century is a couple of brief periods, whenj in any case a large propertion of English seats were Labour.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Brexit was of course in no way Nationalist.

    Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
    Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...

    It's not binary, I'd suggest.

    Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.

    The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
    Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.

    'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
    Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
    Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s.
    There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
    Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
    I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..

    *or 80 minute in the case of RU.
    Nothing wrong with being a rugger bugger though, of course! I used to be one ...
    Moi aussi, though probably for the best that I gave it up before entering my youthful beer drinking and being an idiot phase.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    You are conflating a public service with a public good.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,572
    Aslan said:

    Carnyx said:

    Aslan said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
    If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
    First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.

    Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
    Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
    Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    The honours still refer to the Empire.

    It isn't over.
    Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
    Are Cornwall and Yorkshire colonies too?
    Not in that sense, as they don't have different legal systems fromk the rest of England. In otgher senses, for instance in the way in which their economies are managed overall, possibly, but I wouldn't wish to presume on what the locals might think.
    So not having your own legal system is less colonialism than having your own legal system? You nationalists do contort yourselves into ridiculous positions.
    They haven’t quite got over the fact that they willingly entered into a union, and confirmed it by public ballot a couple of centuries later.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Brexit was of course in no way Nationalist.

    Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
    Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...

    It's not binary, I'd suggest.

    Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.

    The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
    Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.

    'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
    Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
    Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s.
    There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
    Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
    I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..

    *or 80 minute in the case of RU.
    Nothing wrong with being a rugger bugger though, of course! I used to be one ...
    Moi aussi, though probably for the best that I gave it up before entering my youthful beer drinking and being an idiot phase.
    I thought beer drinking and being an idiot was mandatory for being a rugger bugger.
  • The Northern Research Group of Conservative MPs (NRG) is planning to target Angela Rayner's seat at the next general election, as well as those of senior Labour figures Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper, PoliticsHome understands.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/northern-tories-plan-to-target-angela-rayners-seat-at-the-next-election#.Ya9-dTD-irM.twitter
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,425
    edited December 2021
    I'm constantly surprised by the number of people on here who are dismayed by the quality of BBC programmes that, apparently, they would never ever dream of watching because they are on the BBC.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.

    Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
    This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
    Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
    Is 1984 overtly ideological? My objection to Orwell is that he gives very little clue as to what he is actually for rather than against. What is Orwellism?
    Yep. Totalitarian state very bad is hardly an ideological position. Nor one most could object to.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    A public service is a different thing to a public good.
    The BBC is a public good.
    Despite the license, it is the technically non-excludable.
  • Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    One of the best scenes in new Doctor Who was the last Dalek telling the Doctor that he would make a good Dalek.
    Isn't that a direct copy from Star Trek TNG (or possibly, First Contact)?

    I stopped watching Doctor Who a few episodes into Jodie Whitaker taking over. Not because a woman was the Doctor but because it was clear that the stories were poorly concealed left-wing ideology.
  • Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.

    Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
    This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
    Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
    I agree. I find unsubtle, klunky and didactic drama very off-putting even when I'm sympathetic to the lesson it is trying to give. Occasionally some propaganda is great art like the films of Eisenstein.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    So it's a subscription service then?
    In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
  • Farooq said:

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    I thought they missed some potential to have fun in Bridgeton - make it turn out that the Duke had built ((re-built) his family fortune in the sugar trade.....
    Would have been a fascinating way to smuggle Haitian history into it, if they could get around the French/UK thing and the slight anachronism of it happening 20 years earlier. The cross-cutting of race and class that fuelled that particular period of history was really interesting.
    But Bridgerton isn't an ambitious program, and deserves to be criticised in the strongest terms for simply being shit.
    Bridgerton was the most fortunately-timed TV programme in all of history. Last winter we were all miserable, scared and locked down as more than a thousand of our fellow citizens died every day (again) of a deadly disease - and suddenly here was this bright, shiny, colourful, silly TV programme with sunshine and sex to provide us with some undemanding escapism. It didn't need to be any good. It just had to be there.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,476
    edited December 2021
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.

    Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
    This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
    Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
    Is 1984 overtly ideological? My objection to Orwell is that he gives very little clue as to what he is actually for rather than against. What is Orwellism?
    Yep. Totalitarian state very bad is hardly an ideological position. Nor one most could object to.
    ....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
    If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
    First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.

    Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
    Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
    Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    The honours still refer to the Empire.

    It isn't over.
    Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
    On your definition then in 1964 and 1974 (and maybe 2023/4?) England was a colony of Scotland. As then England voted Tory but got Labour governments thanks to Scottish MPs
    You also need to factor in the Welsh who had the same legal system as England, so your arithmetic might be out.

    But even if the English didn't then completely control their own laws, the asymmetry meant that the problem was much worse for Scotland. All you can adduce since the middle of the 20th century is a couple of brief periods, whenj in any case a large propertion of English seats were Labour.
    Either way, England voted Tory but got Labour governments thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs.

    Now it will be even worse for England if Starmer becomes PM after the next UK general election thanks to Scottish MPs. For England will not have its own parliament for its domestic legislation if it has a Tory majority but UK Labour PM, while Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments if they have a UK Tory PM they did not vote for.

    Especially as Starmer will demand the SNP vote on English laws in return for devomax and indyref2
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079

    dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    The most bizarre take yet of the Arthur Labibjo-Hughes horror;

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10281731/amp/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Football-clapping-Arthur-Labinjo-Hughes-display-virtue-signalling.html

    Seriously Mr Littlejohn? THAT is your contribution?

    “ I have absolutely no intention of repeating the gruesome details, largely because I refused to read them in the first place.”

    Fair enough, you might think. But you’re being paid to write about Arthur’s death. And then..

    “ what this column wants to address is the calculated exploitation of this tragedy by football clubs and directors desperate to burnish their 'caring' credentials.

    Had this 'tribute' been a spontaneous gesture by genuinely horrified spectators it may have been understandable. But it was nothing of the sort.

    This was another stage-managed display of shameless virtue-signalling by a venal, amoral industry which insists on clambering aboard every passing bandwagon, from anti-racism to trans rights.”

    Fuck off mr Littlejohn. Every single football fan that clapped is a better person than you.

    Just fuck off and get another job.

    He has his finger on the pulse of UK current affairs.
    From his home in Florida.
    Didn't he criticise people who worked from home during Covid-19 despite the fact he has worked from home for years?
    Yes. But they were folk WFH in the UK. A crucial distinction.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,814
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.

    Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
    This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
    Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
    Is 1984 overtly ideological? My objection to Orwell is that he gives very little clue as to what he is actually for rather than against. What is Orwellism?
    Yep. Totalitarian state very bad is hardly an ideological position. Nor one most could object to.
    I could introduce you to some real, live* Stalinists who find things like 1984 personally offensive. They really believe that a state with total, complete power is desirable.

    *Actually at least one is probably dead by now...
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605
    I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.

    Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    So it's a subscription service then?
    In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
    PT claims he can’t watch it anyway, as presumably he is “excluded” from doing so.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    edited December 2021
    Eabhal said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    You are conflating a public service with a public good.
    I’m really not.

    The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).

    If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    ping said:

    The most bizarre take yet of the Arthur Labibjo-Hughes horror;

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10281731/amp/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Football-clapping-Arthur-Labinjo-Hughes-display-virtue-signalling.html

    Seriously Mr Littlejohn? THAT is your contribution?

    “ I have absolutely no intention of repeating the gruesome details, largely because I refused to read them in the first place.”

    Fair enough, you might think. But you’re being paid to write about Arthur’s death. And then..

    “ what this column wants to address is the calculated exploitation of this tragedy by football clubs and directors desperate to burnish their 'caring' credentials.

    Had this 'tribute' been a spontaneous gesture by genuinely horrified spectators it may have been understandable. But it was nothing of the sort.

    This was another stage-managed display of shameless virtue-signalling by a venal, amoral industry which insists on clambering aboard every passing bandwagon, from anti-racism to trans rights.”

    Fuck off mr Littlejohn. Every single football fan that clapped is a better person than you.

    Just fuck off and get another job.

    He has his finger on the pulse of UK current affairs.
    From his home in Florida.
    Didn't he criticise people who worked from home during Covid-19 despite the fact he has worked from home for years?
    Yes. But they were folk WFH in the UK. A crucial distinction.
    He's a bigger bellend that Kelvin Mackenzie.
  • Foreign Affairs select Committee hearing on Afghanistan live now on Sky

    Worth watching - brutal. I doubt they'll enjoy reading the Committee's report.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,766
    edited December 2021

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Brexit was of course in no way Nationalist.

    Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
    Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...

    It's not binary, I'd suggest.

    Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.

    The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
    Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.

    'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
    Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
    Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s.
    There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
    Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
    I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..

    *or 80 minute in the case of RU.
    Nothing wrong with being a rugger bugger though, of course! I used to be one ...
    Moi aussi, though probably for the best that I gave it up before entering my youthful beer drinking and being an idiot phase.
    I thought beer drinking and being an idiot was mandatory for being a rugger bugger.
    I meant more the playing than the après. I made first XV at school for a few weeks and though I had started my first furtive forays into pubs at that point, I packed in the rugby before I reached the drinking each others piss and homoerotic high jinks in the showers stage (though some of that was available at art school if one's tastes ran that way).
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,720
    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    So it's a subscription service then?
    In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
    Because it's the only subscription service that still charges you even if you don't watch it, so long as you watch any live programmes from other providers?
  • Eabhal said:

    I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.

    Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).

    There is no reason for Strictly to be on the BBC. It is probably the most commercially viable programme in the country.

    The BBC should be there for programmes which would not be commercially viable. I think the quality of documentaries on the BBC has declined quite dramatically. For example there used to be a constant stream of decent historical documentaries, C4 and C5 now both have better content. If I had more time I would get a subscription to HistoryHit.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 895

    Eabhal said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    You are conflating a public service with a public good.
    I’m really not.

    The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).

    If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
    The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
  • How times change..
    Jul 28 - John Swinney asked re UK Gov vaccine passport plan and Michael Gove saying vaccine refusers are "selfish". Swinney: “It's the wrong way to handle it."
    Oct 1 - Vaccine passports start in Scotland
    Today - Nicola Sturgeon: Vaccine refusers are "selfish"


    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1468243194362093572?s=20
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Brexit was of course in no way Nationalist.

    Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
    Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...

    It's not binary, I'd suggest.

    Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.

    The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
    Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.

    'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
    Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
    Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s.
    There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
    Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
    I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..

    *or 80 minute in the case of RU.
    Nothing wrong with being a rugger bugger though, of course! I used to be one ...
    Moi aussi, though probably for the best that I gave it up before entering my youthful beer drinking and being an idiot phase.
    I thought beer drinking and being an idiot was mandatory for being a rugger bugger.
    I meant more the playing than the après. I made first XV at school for a few weeks and though I had started my first furtive forays into pubs at that point, I packed in the rugby before I reached the drinking each others piss and homoerotic high jinks in the showers stage (though some of that was available at art school if one's tastes ran that way).
    I became a watcher of rugby in my school and university days because I was rubbish at rugby wanted to focus on my studies.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,427
    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    Not really. I often have tons of great arguments in the tank but I go for the cheap insult because that's the mood I'm in.

    Eg watch for my next post. It's going to be total content-free snark.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,230
    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    So it's a subscription service then?
    In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
    Because you need to pay for it to watch anything live on any channel or other subscription service, even if you never watch the BBC. Those who criticise it are mostly the ones calling for it to become a proper subscription service.
  • Foreign Affairs select Committee hearing on Afghanistan live now on Sky

    Worth watching - brutal. I doubt they'll enjoy reading the Committee's report.
    Sir Philip Barton, top civil servant at the FO, is having a car crash
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,107
    The impression I get of the retreat from Kabul is that people concerned realised it was a fiasco and made sure they didn't get too much involved.

    More Singapore than Dunkirk.

    The dog thing is an outage. Johnson shouldn't be allowed to deny it.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605

    Eabhal said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    You are conflating a public service with a public good.
    I’m really not.

    The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).

    If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
    I agree with you on your definition, but not the example (cos license fee).

    At uni I was given stuff like parks, clean air, as best examples.

  • AslanAslan Posts: 895
    RobD said:

    Aslan said:

    Carnyx said:

    Aslan said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
    If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
    First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.

    Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
    Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
    Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.

    RobD said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
    The honours still refer to the Empire.

    It isn't over.
    Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
    Are Cornwall and Yorkshire colonies too?
    Not in that sense, as they don't have different legal systems fromk the rest of England. In otgher senses, for instance in the way in which their economies are managed overall, possibly, but I wouldn't wish to presume on what the locals might think.
    So not having your own legal system is less colonialism than having your own legal system? You nationalists do contort yourselves into ridiculous positions.
    They haven’t quite got over the fact that they willingly entered into a union, and confirmed it by public ballot a couple of centuries later.
    And in the intervening period got several heads of governments. A very unusual colony!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB 39% (+2)
    CON 36% (-1)
    LD 9% (-1)
    SNP 5% (-)
    GRN 3% (-1)
    RFM UK 3% (-1)
    OTH 8% (+1)

    1060, online, UK adults aged 18+, 30 Nov-1 Dec 21. Changes vs w/ 15 Nov 21
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    Eabhal said:

    I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.

    Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).

    It is a public good.
    That the government attempts to charge for it makes no difference to that.

    If you stripped out all the “commercial” stuff it would become like PBS in the US, a shadow of its former self.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    Endillion said:

    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    So it's a subscription service then?
    In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
    Because you need to pay for it to watch anything live on any channel or other subscription service, even if you never watch the BBC. Those who criticise it are mostly the ones calling for it to become a proper subscription service.
    I know. But @Philip_Thompson seems to be arguing it already is one.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,814
    AlistairM said:

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    One of the best scenes in new Doctor Who was the last Dalek telling the Doctor that he would make a good Dalek.
    Isn't that a direct copy from Star Trek TNG (or possibly, First Contact)?

    I stopped watching Doctor Who a few episodes into Jodie Whitaker taking over. Not because a woman was the Doctor but because it was clear that the stories were poorly concealed left-wing ideology.
    "....clear that the stories were poorly congealed tapioca" - Fixed that for you. No charge.

    There are plenty of ways to make a moral point, without beating the audience to death with it.

    IKKKKKKKKKAAAAAARRRAAAAAA!
  • Foreign Affairs select Committee hearing on Afghanistan live now on Sky

    Worth watching - brutal. I doubt they'll enjoy reading the Committee's report.
    Sir Philip Barton, top civil servant at the FO, is having a car crash
    And the most brutal questioner was Alicia Kearns Conservative....
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,220
    edited December 2021
    A propos of nothing and on no particular topic, this is surely one of the most bizarre headlines I've ever seen, on the Guardian's website just now.

    "Electrician jailed after castrating men at their request in Germany"

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    AlistairM said:

    Eabhal said:

    I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.

    Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).

    There is no reason for Strictly to be on the BBC. It is probably the most commercially viable programme in the country.

    The BBC should be there for programmes which would not be commercially viable. I think the quality of documentaries on the BBC has declined quite dramatically. For example there used to be a constant stream of decent historical documentaries, C4 and C5 now both have better content. If I had more time I would get a subscription to HistoryHit.
    Remove the likes of Strictly and its most popular programmes then the BBC would be the equivalent of PBS in the US. An entirely license fee or tax funded broadcaster making highbrow programmes with a fraction of its current audience but still no adverts which would help fund the likes of Strictly license or taxpayer free
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,230
    dixiedean said:

    Endillion said:

    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    So it's a subscription service then?
    In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
    Because you need to pay for it to watch anything live on any channel or other subscription service, even if you never watch the BBC. Those who criticise it are mostly the ones calling for it to become a proper subscription service.
    I know. But @Philip_Thompson seems to be arguing it already is one.
    He can speak for himself (and does, at length) but I think he's arguing it's neither a subscription service nor a public good, and should become one or the other (with his preference being pretty firmly for the former).
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    edited December 2021
    Aslan said:

    Eabhal said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    You are conflating a public service with a public good.
    I’m really not.

    The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).

    If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
    The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
    Eh?

    I can put a gate on the park up the road, too.
    That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 895

    Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).

    It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.

    I think both those examples are bollocks. Star Wars' problems are nothing to do with promoting nonsense (aside from the films themselves): it's to do with the fans being a bunch of idiots who essentially want EpIV-VI all over again. The over-arching plot issues, and changes from film to film to match fan comments, were nothing to do with woke or modern agendas.

    I mean, take Rogue One. That had a very strong female lead character and was, IMO, great. It was also very successful.
    The Last Jedi was nonsensical throughout. The overall plot didn't make sense, nor did individual character's actions. Nothing to do with the fans. The fact that Rogue One was popular with fans shows how they were very willing to have different stories.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,045

    Eabhal said:

    I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.

    Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).

    It is a public good.
    That the government attempts to charge for it makes no difference to that.

    If you stripped out all the “commercial” stuff it would become like PBS in the US, a shadow of its former self.
    Were things better in the old days?
    Interestingly, I've just come across a lovely tool which allows you to find any BBC schedule in history. I've arbitrarily landed on 1990:
    https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/service_bbc_one_london/1990-10-06

    Others can decide for themselves whether what's on offer now constitutes progress from what was on offer then. But it is with a pang of nostalgia I'm reminded that Saturday afternoon sport used to be pretty good on the BBC in those days - Wales v Barbarians as a centrepiece of the day with commentary by Bill McLaren. Lovely.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,476

    Foreign Affairs select Committee hearing on Afghanistan live now on Sky

    Worth watching - brutal. I doubt they'll enjoy reading the Committee's report.
    Sir Philip Barton, top civil servant at the FO, is having a car crash
    Stewart Malcolm McDonald is a hard man

    Barton is a disaster. His takeaway from the whistleblower's report is He alleged a breach of the civil service code, but there wasn't one, so phew.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,220
    edited December 2021
    dixiedean said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB 39% (+2)
    CON 36% (-1)
    LD 9% (-1)
    SNP 5% (-)
    GRN 3% (-1)
    RFM UK 3% (-1)
    OTH 8% (+1)

    1060, online, UK adults aged 18+, 30 Nov-1 Dec 21. Changes vs w/ 15 Nov 21

    Hmm. Starmer's team will be happy with that one, that's for sure. Maybe the competence profile really is cutting through above all else after all.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    .

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    kinabalu said:

    dixiedean said:

    Brexit was of course in no way Nationalist.

    Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
    Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...

    It's not binary, I'd suggest.

    Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.

    The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
    Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.

    'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
    Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
    Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s.
    There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
    Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
    I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..

    *or 80 minute in the case of RU.
    Nothing wrong with being a rugger bugger though, of course! I used to be one ...
    Moi aussi, though probably for the best that I gave it up before entering my youthful beer drinking and being an idiot phase.
    I thought beer drinking and being an idiot was mandatory for being a rugger bugger.
    I meant more the playing than the après. I made first XV at school for a few weeks and though I had started my first furtive forays into pubs at that point, I packed in the rugby before I reached the drinking each others piss and homoerotic high jinks in the showers stage (though some of that was available at art school if one's tastes ran that way).
    I became a watcher of rugby in my school and university days because I was rubbish at rugby wanted to focus on my studies.
    I moved from being a player of rugby at school to a watcher of rugby at university, becuase all of a sudden the opposing players were 6’6” tall, weighed 20st, and could run 100m in eleven point something!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,427

    Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).

    It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.

    How do you like your women in the swords-n-sorcery space then, Morris?
  • Scoop: US will push Germany to agree to stop Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline if Putin invades Ukraine, sources say.
    Germany’s incoming vice chancellor, Robert Habeck, says review of the project might be affected by developments in Ukraine. @AlbertoNardelli @vanessadezem @ArneDelfs


    https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1468246593002520577?s=20
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328

    Aslan said:

    Eabhal said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    You are conflating a public service with a public good.
    I’m really not.

    The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).

    If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
    The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
    Eh?

    I can put a gate on the park up the road, too.
    That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
    Public good doesn't mean it's something for the common good. It literally just means non-excludable and non-rivalrous. So the BBC does not meet the first test, no matter how much you think it's a great thing, just because it meets the 2nd test.
  • There is now officially community transmission with omicron in Denmark. ~50 % increase per day for the past few days.

    Remember: Denmark has a very high capacity for testing and variant detection and, hence, is without blindfolds.

    The spread is likely similar in your country.
    https://twitter.com/M_B_Petersen/status/1468237024939360273?s=20
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    Endillion said:

    dixiedean said:

    Endillion said:

    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    So it's a subscription service then?
    In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
    Because you need to pay for it to watch anything live on any channel or other subscription service, even if you never watch the BBC. Those who criticise it are mostly the ones calling for it to become a proper subscription service.
    I know. But @Philip_Thompson seems to be arguing it already is one.
    He can speak for himself (and does, at length) but I think he's arguing it's neither a subscription service nor a public good, and should become one or the other (with his preference being pretty firmly for the former).
    My apologies to PT. Misread. It was @aslan who asserted it was a subscription service.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Foreign Affairs select Committee hearing on Afghanistan live now on Sky

    Worth watching - brutal. I doubt they'll enjoy reading the Committee's report.
    Sir Philip Barton, top civil servant at the FO, is having a car crash
    Stewart Malcolm McDonald is a hard man

    Barton is a disaster. His takeaway from the whistleblower's report is He alleged a breach of the civil service code, but there wasn't one, so phew.
    I am astonished by Barton's evidence and pressure to resign on Raab is understandable, but I expect the committee will comprehensively condemn Barton in this whole sorry affair
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605

    Eabhal said:

    I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.

    Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).

    It is a public good.
    That the government attempts to charge for it makes no difference to that.

    If you stripped out all the “commercial” stuff it would become like PBS in the US, a shadow of its former self.
    Ok, that's an interesting argument. Is music a public good, then?

    Artists attempt to charge for it but anyone can easily pirate it.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,230
    AlistairM said:

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    One of the best scenes in new Doctor Who was the last Dalek telling the Doctor that he would make a good Dalek.
    Isn't that a direct copy from Star Trek TNG (or possibly, First Contact)?

    I stopped watching Doctor Who a few episodes into Jodie Whitaker taking over. Not because a woman was the Doctor but because it was clear that the stories were poorly concealed left-wing ideology.
    The key point here is that making the Doctor a woman, and the stories being poorly concealed left-wing ideology, are not independent events. Much of the backlash to her appointment was because, based on past experience, many in the audience could predict that the latter would inevitably follow the former. Understanding this reasoning is key to understanding the (non-existent) culture war.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    maaarsh said:

    Aslan said:

    Eabhal said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    You are conflating a public service with a public good.
    I’m really not.

    The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).

    If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
    The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
    Eh?

    I can put a gate on the park up the road, too.
    That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
    Public good doesn't mean it's something for the common good. It literally just means non-excludable and non-rivalrous. So the BBC does not meet the first test, no matter how much you think it's a great thing, just because it meets the 2nd test.
    It must be throwing out hour at the Cretin and Duck.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383

    Farooq said:

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    I thought they missed some potential to have fun in Bridgeton - make it turn out that the Duke had built ((re-built) his family fortune in the sugar trade.....
    Would have been a fascinating way to smuggle Haitian history into it, if they could get around the French/UK thing and the slight anachronism of it happening 20 years earlier. The cross-cutting of race and class that fuelled that particular period of history was really interesting.
    But Bridgerton isn't an ambitious program, and deserves to be criticised in the strongest terms for simply being shit.
    Bridgerton was the most fortunately-timed TV programme in all of history. Last winter we were all miserable, scared and locked down as more than a thousand of our fellow citizens died every day (again) of a deadly disease - and suddenly here was this bright, shiny, colourful, silly TV programme with sunshine and sex to provide us with some undemanding escapism. It didn't need to be any good. It just had to be there.
    Horses for courses, I guess. I tried watching a few episodes and I became furiously against watching more. Yes, I knew it was meant to be a happy plume of pure fluff, but it was nothing more than a patchwork of tropes and cliches. It's far too try-hard.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,987

    Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.

    In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.

    Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.

    (As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).

    Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did.
    Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
    I thought they missed some potential to have fun in Bridgeton - make it turn out that the Duke had built ((re-built) his family fortune in the sugar trade.....
    I've only watched the first episode of Bridgerton and I found the dialogue really clunky, although I liked it more than a lot of other costume dramas, such as the utterly awful (and highly ideological) Downton Abbey. Does it improve?
    No idea - the trauma of watching the first ten minutes caused me to run away to a remote South East Asian rain forest where I recruited the local tribesmen into a fearful cannibal army and deliver weird soliloquies in the rain.
    AIUI there weren't many, if any, cannibals in SE Asia. Polynesia, yes. Central America yes. Also Cheddar Gorge. Possibly
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    Tory MP Alicia Kearns, a former civil servant who has worked in FCO crisis centres, asks Barton: “If this isn’t what failure looks like, what does?”
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1468247736541663245
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,814
    Aslan said:

    Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).

    It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.

    I think both those examples are bollocks. Star Wars' problems are nothing to do with promoting nonsense (aside from the films themselves): it's to do with the fans being a bunch of idiots who essentially want EpIV-VI all over again. The over-arching plot issues, and changes from film to film to match fan comments, were nothing to do with woke or modern agendas.

    I mean, take Rogue One. That had a very strong female lead character and was, IMO, great. It was also very successful.
    The Last Jedi was nonsensical throughout. The overall plot didn't make sense, nor did individual character's actions. Nothing to do with the fans. The fact that Rogue One was popular with fans shows how they were very willing to have different stories.
    Rogue One actually *built* some characters. Rather than randomly spawning some characters, computer game style.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    dixiedean said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB 39% (+2)
    CON 36% (-1)
    LD 9% (-1)
    SNP 5% (-)
    GRN 3% (-1)
    RFM UK 3% (-1)
    OTH 8% (+1)

    1060, online, UK adults aged 18+, 30 Nov-1 Dec 21. Changes vs w/ 15 Nov 21

    Electoral Calculus gives Conservatives 284, Labour 279 on those new numbers on the new boundaries.

    So Conservatives most seats but Starmer PM with SNP confidence and supply
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=36&LAB=39&LIB=9&Reform=3&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=19&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it.
    Suppose that was mandatory.
    What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success?
    Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.

    Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).

    It is a public good.
    That the government attempts to charge for it makes no difference to that.

    If you stripped out all the “commercial” stuff it would become like PBS in the US, a shadow of its former self.
    Ok, that's an interesting argument. Is music a public good, then?

    Artists attempt to charge for it but anyone can easily pirate it.
    Music on the the BBC’s free-to-air public service broadcasting is a public good, yes.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    Aslan said:

    The fact that Rogue One was popular with fans shows how they were very willing to have different stories.

    Only after a complete recut
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,230
    BBC Hour on PB.

    For those that find Hips simply too exciting.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    dixiedean said:

    I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it.
    Suppose that was mandatory.
    What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success?
    Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?

    Don’t be intrigued.

    The argument is a mendacious attempt to close down the BBC because some people don’t want to pay taxes for it. But rather than say that, they try various specious side arguments.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,427

    Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.

    Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
    This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
    Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
    And 'Power in the Darkness' by the Tom Robinson band. :smile:
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079

    dixiedean said:

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB 39% (+2)
    CON 36% (-1)
    LD 9% (-1)
    SNP 5% (-)
    GRN 3% (-1)
    RFM UK 3% (-1)
    OTH 8% (+1)

    1060, online, UK adults aged 18+, 30 Nov-1 Dec 21. Changes vs w/ 15 Nov 21

    Hmm. Starmer's team will be happy with that one, that's for sure. Maybe the competence profile really is cutting through above all else after all.
    Forgot to include the company. This is Survation.
    Largest Labour lead they have had in the Johnson-era.
    Just one poll. But we are pretty much at parity/slight Labour lead now
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2021
    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    So it's a subscription service then?
    In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
    Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.

    The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.

    There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 895

    Aslan said:

    Eabhal said:

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?

    A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.

    David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/david-tennant-around-world-80-days-shows-alarming-side-british/

    I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
    I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.

    As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
    You should stop paying your taxes, too.
    You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
    Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.

    If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
    Public service broadcasting is a public good.
    The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.

    In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

    Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
    You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
    Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
    No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
    He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
    On the definition yes.
    However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.

    I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
    Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.

    Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.

    I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
    You are conflating a public service with a public good.
    I’m really not.

    The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).

    If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
    The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
    Eh?

    I can put a gate on the park up the road, too.
    That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
    "National parks are not pure public goods." Turner, Journal of Economic Education, Vol 33, 2002.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,220
    edited December 2021
    Cookie said:

    Eabhal said:

    I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.

    Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).

    It is a public good.
    That the government attempts to charge for it makes no difference to that.

    If you stripped out all the “commercial” stuff it would become like PBS in the US, a shadow of its former self.
    Were things better in the old days?
    Interestingly, I've just come across a lovely tool which allows you to find any BBC schedule in history. I've arbitrarily landed on 1990:
    https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/service_bbc_one_london/1990-10-06

    Others can decide for themselves whether what's on offer now constitutes progress from what was on offer then. But it is with a pang of nostalgia I'm reminded that Saturday afternoon sport used to be pretty good on the BBC in those days - Wales v Barbarians as a centrepiece of the day with commentary by Bill McLaren. Lovely.
    The BBC has undoubtedly lost a lot of variety and ambition, as someone with fairly close knowledge of it from way back when. Arguably the period from the late 1980's to around 1993 or so was a real highpoint, with a new determination to entertain and semi-commercial approach, but with many more links too with the pre-Birt era, before the restructuring that did so much to make the BBC less distinctive. Before that there was a liberalised, half-traditional and half-radical ethos of the 1960's to 1980's, linked back to Reith.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078

    BBC Hour on PB.

    For those that find Hips simply too exciting.

    Perhaps there’s something happening in the news that PB Tories are keen to distract us from.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,476
    This is bloody rivetting

    Foreign Affairs select Committee hearing on Afghanistan live now on Sky

    https://news.sky.com/story/watch-sky-news-live-10315632

    Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
This discussion has been closed.