Howdy, Stranger!

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

Monday’s going to be a big day for Johnson – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • glw said:

    alex_ said:

    BBC: The largest consumers of the BBC are concentrated in the Tory core vote. The alleged lowest consumers are the U30s.

    It's not alleged, Ofcom measure that sort of thing. It used to be just children and teenagers that watched more Netflix than all BBC output, as far as I can tell from the slighly opaque way the data is presented that now might be true for the under 35s.

    We could be fast approaching the point when Netflix is the top source of television in the UK, a position held by the BBC almost since the invention of television itself.

    Maybe the licence fee should go to Netflix if that's what people are choosing to watch?
    Netflix Premium is £13.99 a month. That is more than the licence fee, and is the one that allows different people to watch different programmes at the same time, like they can with the BBC.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Sandpit said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    The original plan was for an encryption device to be on Freeview boxes, same as with Sky boxes, but the BBC vetoed the idea because it might lead to their channels being changed to subscription-based services by a future government.

    Broadcast TV, using radio waves, probably only has a handful of years left now anyway.
    A handful? Five years max? I don't think so.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    It can’t as it is however I think there are two routes to this.

    Firstly inevitably in a few years I can see that there will no longer be the traditional broadcast medium - as all tvs become internet ready, as older generations are replaced by those who have already adopted internet tv/streaming then it’s easier to put all tv behind subscription. So if you want to watch the bbc in the future it’s going to be via streaming and so you will need a log-in anyway as you do with iPlayer etc now.

    In the transition however I don’t think it would be a huge issue if there was a dual approach. Broadcast BBC covered by a smaller basic licence fee covering BBC1,2 and BBC news. Then an additional BBC subscription service where you have all the bbc channels but a much improved IPlayer - the current layout is awful for starters - but more importantly forget Britbox and have all of BBC historic content on the subscription system.

    So for example I would happily subscribe just for access to all the old Michael Wood docs and the BBC’s other history docs from the past. I don’t really like the fact that the BBC take a fee/tax to access a “national asset” but then someone there decides which of the limited catalogue we are allowed to see. If these programmes were paid for by the taxpayer/licence fee payer/British public then they have the right to access them - at present by hiding them behind Britbox it’s already created a two tier service anyway.

    This model could also work for ITV etc - free to air basic channels but then a total subscription service (ad free if you want to pay extra) with all the back care log he at a click.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 395
    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    So you’re going to “liberate” it from its public service broadcasting responsibility as well. And allow it to take whatever editorial line on news etc it damn well pleases? The Tories don’t complain about what they perceive as “BBC bias” because it is funded by the licence fee! They do so because it is enormously influential and trusted by millions of voters!

    Suggesting that the BBC sees Netflix/Amazon/Disney as competitors is laughable. They don’t due a fraction of things the BBC does (or is required to do as part of its core remit). It’s role isn’t to make money!
    Yes absolutely. Allow it to take whatever editorial line it damn well pleases. Why on earth not.

    The thing that always gets me (and I may have, er, mentioned it on PB a time or two) is when some RT journalist is interviewed on the Beeb and the Beeb guy says "but you're just a state run broadcaster..."

    During the pandemic the BBC's (or at least its website's) was indistinguishable from the government line on the virus. Complete with long story about some 16-yr old who had suffered from Covid and hence we should all be scared. They are at it again today describing (at length) how some young woman with ME is "terrified" of going out because she might catch Covid.
    Because RT IS a state run broadcaster but the BBC isn't. The licence fee meant that it depends on the whole country for it's funding but not the government of the day. Therefore it's remit was to appeal to the whole country who actually pay for it. It may never have done that perfectly but it's a precious idea that I think we lose at our peril.
  • TimS said:

    I pay my French audiovisual tax as a matter of course through the local council tax, even though we are hardly there and when we are try to avoid watching TV as much as possible. Collection via the same means as council tax seems a perfectly reasonable approach.

    The fact is the government don't like the BBC because they think it's woke. Just like the leftist twitterati don't like the BBC because they think it's a Tory propaganda machine. And Scottish nationalists don't like the BBC because they think it's a unionist propaganda machine.

    Putting the future of a globally important institution like the BBC in the hands of people who self-evidently don't wish it well is not a good idea. But there's the paradox: if we want it to remain impartial and public-service oriented, then it needs to be accountable to democratic institutions. So it relies on fair play by the government. It's when that fair play breaks down, as it clearly has down now and did over Iraq under Blair, that we are left stuck.

    It's not the only institution where that's increasingly the case. When the old unwritten rules of the game get trampled on we have few formal defences. Take the trend of policy announcements outwith parliament, the politicisation of the civil service, the ignoring and casting aside of parliamentary standards enquiries - first Patel, now no doubt Bercow, and so on.

    I don't see a solution to any of this other than - hope of hopes - grown up politicians willing to take a cross-party, politically neutral approach to certain areas of national life where partisanship is in nobody's interest.

    Great post.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2022
    glw said:

    alex_ said:

    BBC: The largest consumers of the BBC are concentrated in the Tory core vote. The alleged lowest consumers are the U30s.

    It's not alleged, Ofcom measure that sort of thing. It used to be just children and teenagers that watched more Netflix than all BBC output, as far as I can tell from the slighly opaque way the data is presented that now might be true for the under 35s.

    We could be fast approaching the point when Netflix is the top source of television in the UK, a position held by the BBC almost since the invention of television itself.

    Maybe the licence fee should go to Netflix if that's what people are choosing to watch?
    Only 1 of the top 10 watched TV shows was Netflix produced however last year.

    The top watched TV show on any platform was BBC produced Strictly.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10260875/Netflix-hit-Squid-Game-comes-10th-list-watched-shows-Strictly-Countryfile.html

    However, yes if the licence fee continues it should be split between all broadcasters to fund highbrow culture and science programmes and high quality news and current affairs
  • TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    So you’re going to “liberate” it from its public service broadcasting responsibility as well. And allow it to take whatever editorial line on news etc it damn well pleases? The Tories don’t complain about what they perceive as “BBC bias” because it is funded by the licence fee! They do so because it is enormously influential and trusted by millions of voters!

    Suggesting that the BBC sees Netflix/Amazon/Disney as competitors is laughable. They don’t due a fraction of things the BBC does (or is required to do as part of its core remit). It’s role isn’t to make money!
    Yes absolutely. Allow it to take whatever editorial line it damn well pleases. Why on earth not.

    The thing that always gets me (and I may have, er, mentioned it on PB a time or two) is when some RT journalist is interviewed on the Beeb and the Beeb guy says "but you're just a state run broadcaster..."

    During the pandemic the BBC's (or at least its website's) was indistinguishable from the government line on the virus. Complete with long story about some 16-yr old who had suffered from Covid and hence we should all be scared. They are at it again today describing (at length) how some young woman with ME is "terrified" of going out because she might catch Covid.
    To be fair who says that's because its the government line? As it seems indistinguishable from the Grauniad line too and I assure you the Grauniad isn't doing so because the Tories want them to.

    Oh Em Gee we are all going to die is classic media clickbait.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Sandpit said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    The original plan was for an encryption device to be on Freeview boxes, same as with Sky boxes, but the BBC vetoed the idea because it might lead to their channels being changed to subscription-based services by a future government.

    Broadcast TV, using radio waves, probably only has a handful of years left now anyway.
    How does that work for terrestrial broadcasts? A: It doesn't.

    The largest section of TV consumers receive via digital terrestrial only.
    The original plan, way back when the license fee for TV was invented, was actually encryption. The technology of the time was *just* not capable of the job.

    Broadcast frequencies are extremely valuable - they will be redeployed to provide various networking and phone services.

    There will be an update, similar to the FreeView thing. All TVs sold will have to work via internet connection, boxes to convert will be sold etc etc.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    TOPPING said:

    Just listened to the Raworth/SKS clip. Sozza but he had beer and sandwiches in the constituency office when, as Raworth explained to him, beer and sandwiches in the office were explicitly forbidden by the rules.

    So it's a what kind of woman do you think I am situation. We have established that SKS broke the rules, just as BoJo did, it's just a question of to what degree.

    There is a hell of a difference between 2021 when the pubs are open and 2020 when none essential shops were closed.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    I was wondering about this the other day. How do the letters, physically, get to SGB? Is there a chance that they may be intercepted somehow? Is it just entrusted to the Royal Mail, and if so do they go to the houses of parliament or to some address in Altrincham and Sale West? Must be an interesting job being his postman.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited January 2022
    TOPPING said:

    Just listened to the Raworth/SKS clip. Sozza but he had beer and sandwiches in the constituency office when, as Raworth explained to him, beer and sandwiches in the office were explicitly forbidden by the rules.

    So it's a what kind of woman do you think I am situation. We have established that SKS broke the rules, just as BoJo did, it's just a question of to what degree.

    By contrast, It's clear as day to what extent Johnson broke the rules ; allowing friday parties for every week of the entire pandemic, staff sending out letters saying bring your own booze, etc. This is why I don't think he and his loyalists will make much headway with Starmer having a single lunchtime beer. He's just obviously a different personality.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704

    So it looks like Sue Gray will be donning the king-size strap-on.

    The question is, will Bozo be the one being asked to get down on all-fours?

    She's got him pegged
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    boulay said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    It can’t as it is however I think there are two routes to this.

    Firstly inevitably in a few years I can see that there will no longer be the traditional broadcast medium - as all tvs become internet ready, as older generations are replaced by those who have already adopted internet tv/streaming then it’s easier to put all tv behind subscription. So if you want to watch the bbc in the future it’s going to be via streaming and so you will need a log-in anyway as you do with iPlayer etc now.

    In the transition however I don’t think it would be a huge issue if there was a dual approach. Broadcast BBC covered by a smaller basic licence fee covering BBC1,2 and BBC news. Then an additional BBC subscription service where you have all the bbc channels but a much improved IPlayer - the current layout is awful for starters - but more importantly forget Britbox and have all of BBC historic content on the subscription system.

    So for example I would happily subscribe just for access to all the old Michael Wood docs and the BBC’s other history docs from the past. I don’t really like the fact that the BBC take a fee/tax to access a “national asset” but then someone there decides which of the limited catalogue we are allowed to see. If these programmes were paid for by the taxpayer/licence fee payer/British public then they have the right to access them - at present by hiding them behind Britbox it’s already created a two tier service anyway.

    This model could also work for ITV etc - free to air basic channels but then a total subscription service (ad free if you want to pay extra) with all the back care log he at a click.
    Tbf that's the first workable suggestion I've heard.

    Personally, I think digital terrestrial broadcasts will be around into the 2030s.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Sandpit said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    The original plan was for an encryption device to be on Freeview boxes, same as with Sky boxes, but the BBC vetoed the idea because it might lead to their channels being changed to subscription-based services by a future government.

    Broadcast TV, using radio waves, probably only has a handful of years left now anyway.
    How does that work for terrestrial broadcasts? A: It doesn't.

    The largest section of TV consumers receive via digital terrestrial only.
    The original plan, way back when the license fee for TV was invented, was actually encryption. The technology of the time was *just* not capable of the job.

    Broadcast frequencies are extremely valuable - they will be redeployed to provide various networking and phone services.

    There will be an update, similar to the FreeView thing. All TVs sold will have to work via internet connection, boxes to convert will be sold etc etc.
    Sounds right but that's a 10-15 year project.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 395

    Sandpit said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    The original plan was for an encryption device to be on Freeview boxes, same as with Sky boxes, but the BBC vetoed the idea because it might lead to their channels being changed to subscription-based services by a future government.

    Broadcast TV, using radio waves, probably only has a handful of years left now anyway.
    How does that work for terrestrial broadcasts? A: It doesn't.

    The largest section of TV consumers receive via digital terrestrial only.
    The original plan, way back when the license fee for TV was invented, was actually encryption. The technology of the time was *just* not capable of the job.

    Broadcast frequencies are extremely valuable - they will be redeployed to provide various networking and phone services.

    There will be an update, similar to the FreeView thing. All TVs sold will have to work via internet connection, boxes to convert will be sold etc etc.
    That fills me with dread though. If you need an internet connection to access any form of media then we're screwed if anything happens to the network.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    Sounds good.

    Or if you don't like that, it could be entrusted to the BBC Trust on a charitable basis like the National Trust.
    Better.

    Although that will just give the Tory swivel-eyed brigade another 'woke' target. I can live with that, seeing as how their attacks on the NT are all puff and hot-air.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    I'm actually enjoying this debate on the BBC.

    Personally, I'd keep things as they are but I can see that's not going to be tenable.

    Some good suggestions coming from all sides here on PB.

    If only Doreen Norris and her colleagues were listening.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    Totally. It's nothing but spiteful ideology-led vandalism. It reminds me of ISIS smashing up cultural treasures in Iraq and Syria.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    The original plan was for an encryption device to be on Freeview boxes, same as with Sky boxes, but the BBC vetoed the idea because it might lead to their channels being changed to subscription-based services by a future government.

    Broadcast TV, using radio waves, probably only has a handful of years left now anyway.
    How does that work for terrestrial broadcasts? A: It doesn't.

    The largest section of TV consumers receive via digital terrestrial only.
    The original plan, way back when the license fee for TV was invented, was actually encryption. The technology of the time was *just* not capable of the job.

    Broadcast frequencies are extremely valuable - they will be redeployed to provide various networking and phone services.

    There will be an update, similar to the FreeView thing. All TVs sold will have to work via internet connection, boxes to convert will be sold etc etc.
    That fills me with dread though. If you need an internet connection to access any form of media then we're screwed if when anything happens to the network.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event
  • boulay said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    It can’t as it is however I think there are two routes to this.

    Firstly inevitably in a few years I can see that there will no longer be the traditional broadcast medium - as all tvs become internet ready, as older generations are replaced by those who have already adopted internet tv/streaming then it’s easier to put all tv behind subscription. So if you want to watch the bbc in the future it’s going to be via streaming and so you will need a log-in anyway as you do with iPlayer etc now.

    In the transition however I don’t think it would be a huge issue if there was a dual approach. Broadcast BBC covered by a smaller basic licence fee covering BBC1,2 and BBC news. Then an additional BBC subscription service where you have all the bbc channels but a much improved IPlayer - the current layout is awful for starters - but more importantly forget Britbox and have all of BBC historic content on the subscription system.

    So for example I would happily subscribe just for access to all the old Michael Wood docs and the BBC’s other history docs from the past. I don’t really like the fact that the BBC take a fee/tax to access a “national asset” but then someone there decides which of the limited catalogue we are allowed to see. If these programmes were paid for by the taxpayer/licence fee payer/British public then they have the right to access them - at present by hiding them behind Britbox it’s already created a two tier service anyway.

    This model could also work for ITV etc - free to air basic channels but then a total subscription service (ad free if you want to pay extra) with all the back care log he at a click.
    Why would you subscribe to get Michael Wood docs when you can get them for free on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+wood
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    boulay said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    It can’t as it is however I think there are two routes to this.

    Firstly inevitably in a few years I can see that there will no longer be the traditional broadcast medium - as all tvs become internet ready, as older generations are replaced by those who have already adopted internet tv/streaming then it’s easier to put all tv behind subscription. So if you want to watch the bbc in the future it’s going to be via streaming and so you will need a log-in anyway as you do with iPlayer etc now.

    In the transition however I don’t think it would be a huge issue if there was a dual approach. Broadcast BBC covered by a smaller basic licence fee covering BBC1,2 and BBC news. Then an additional BBC subscription service where you have all the bbc channels but a much improved IPlayer - the current layout is awful for starters - but more importantly forget Britbox and have all of BBC historic content on the subscription system.

    So for example I would happily subscribe just for access to all the old Michael Wood docs and the BBC’s other history docs from the past. I don’t really like the fact that the BBC take a fee/tax to access a “national asset” but then someone there decides which of the limited catalogue we are allowed to see. If these programmes were paid for by the taxpayer/licence fee payer/British public then they have the right to access them - at present by hiding them behind Britbox it’s already created a two tier service anyway.

    This model could also work for ITV etc - free to air basic channels but then a total subscription service (ad free if you want to pay extra) with all the back care log he at a click.
    Tbf that's the first workable suggestion I've heard.

    Personally, I think digital terrestrial broadcasts will be around into the 2030s.
    However I doubt even the BBC terrestrial broadcasts would be ad free if the licence fee goes
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    On topic, right now I think him surviving is the value bet. I have it as 60/40 he will and the betting is the opposite.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Surely if Bridgen and Chope have sent letters, as they are part of a joined-at-the-hip cabal of naysayers, at least 54 letters are already sitting on Brady's desk, including the one he wrote to himself.

    My guess is they are still short. Sounds like maybe 25-30 letters. I presume that any one of the leading leadership candidates can flick a switch and get the remaining 25 or so letters in at any time of their choosing.

    But that's the nuclear option and all of them will wait for Gray.
    It’s not just the 54 letters either, it’s the rebels needing to know that they have 183 MPs on side for the confidence vote. There’s a 12 month ceasefire rule in place, so they only have one opportunity in 2022.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    alex_ said:

    BBC: The largest consumers of the BBC are concentrated in the Tory core vote. The alleged lowest consumers are the U30s.

    It's not alleged, Ofcom measure that sort of thing. It used to be just children and teenagers that watched more Netflix than all BBC output, as far as I can tell from the slighly opaque way the data is presented that now might be true for the under 35s.

    We could be fast approaching the point when Netflix is the top source of television in the UK, a position held by the BBC almost since the invention of television itself.

    Maybe the licence fee should go to Netflix if that's what people are choosing to watch?
    Only 1 of the top 10 watched TV shows was Netflix produced however last year.

    The top watched TV show on any platform was BBC produced Strictly.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10260875/Netflix-hit-Squid-Game-comes-10th-list-watched-shows-Strictly-Countryfile.html

    However, yes if the licence fee continues it should be split between all broadcasters to fund highbrow culture and science programmes and high quality news and current affairs
    The trend is still away from the BBC and conventional TV broadcasts which makes license fee reform essential. The more people drift away the less tenable it becomes.

    This is a useful report which shows the trends

    https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/222890/media-nations-report-2021.pdf
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Sandpit said:

    Surely if Bridgen and Chope have sent letters, as they are part of a joined-at-the-hip cabal of naysayers, at least 54 letters are already sitting on Brady's desk, including the one he wrote to himself.

    My guess is they are still short. Sounds like maybe 25-30 letters. I presume that any one of the leading leadership candidates can flick a switch and get the remaining 25 or so letters in at any time of their choosing.

    But that's the nuclear option and all of them will wait for Gray.
    It’s not just the 54 letters either, it’s the rebels needing to know that they have 183 MPs on side for the confidence vote. There’s a 12 month ceasefire rule in place, so they only have one opportunity in 2022.
    It's a 12 month ceasefire only if the 1922 committee doesn't change the rules.

    Basically it's hard to see Boris going even though he should and while he remains in power he does permanent harm to the party so for anyone who isn't a out and out tory keeping Boris there is actually a win.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    Not always in a straight line. By the 1970s telegrams took the speed of light to reach your nearest telegram enabled post office and then about 5 working days for the final leg. Non local phone calls cost the same as a cocaine habit.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    https://www.cityam.com/youtube-and-netflix-among-most-watched-channels-as-streaming-booms/

    in 2019 Youtube and Netflix were in the top four channels watched in the UK

    The BBC may be more than its TV channels but as fewer and fewer people watch it or engage with it for any reasonable length of time it is going to be the end of the license fee irrespective of the politics.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    The original plan was for an encryption device to be on Freeview boxes, same as with Sky boxes, but the BBC vetoed the idea because it might lead to their channels being changed to subscription-based services by a future government.

    Broadcast TV, using radio waves, probably only has a handful of years left now anyway.
    How does that work for terrestrial broadcasts? A: It doesn't.

    The largest section of TV consumers receive via digital terrestrial only.
    The original plan, way back when the license fee for TV was invented, was actually encryption. The technology of the time was *just* not capable of the job.

    Broadcast frequencies are extremely valuable - they will be redeployed to provide various networking and phone services.

    There will be an update, similar to the FreeView thing. All TVs sold will have to work via internet connection, boxes to convert will be sold etc etc.
    That fills me with dread though. If you need an internet connection to access any form of media then we're screwed if anything happens to the network.
    You're screwed if anything happens to the broadcast network at the moment - it is surprisingly fragile.

    I'm not going to go into details in a public forum, but smashing the TV broadcast for a big chunk of the country would be fairly simple....

    Depending on parts of the implementation, the Internet *can* be a lot more robust. The original concept was (and is) a network that automatically routes around damage/blockages/malfunctions..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET etc etc
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Surely if Bridgen and Chope have sent letters, as they are part of a joined-at-the-hip cabal of naysayers, at least 54 letters are already sitting on Brady's desk, including the one he wrote to himself.

    My guess is they are still short. Sounds like maybe 25-30 letters. I presume that any one of the leading leadership candidates can flick a switch and get the remaining 25 or so letters in at any time of their choosing.

    But that's the nuclear option and all of them will wait for Gray.
    It’s not just the 54 letters either, it’s the rebels needing to know that they have 183 MPs on side for the confidence vote. There’s a 12 month ceasefire rule in place, so they only have one opportunity in 2022.
    It's a 12 month ceasefire only if the 1922 committee doesn't change the rules.

    Basically it's hard to see Boris going even though he should and while he remains in power he does permanent harm to the party so for anyone who isn't a out and out tory keeping Boris there is actually a win.
    If Boris does not lose a VONC then Boris supporters are also still likely a majority on the 1922 committee anyway
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 395

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    I have a Victorian post office manual that says you don't need to package game birds if they're not too high. Just tie the address label around their neck. Try replicating that service today. I highly recommend R M Ballantyne's excellent novel "Post Haste- A tale of Her Majesty's Mails".

    For the record I'm joking. Of course progress needs change. The novel is real though and a hilarious read. One of the female protagonists has a line saying "Oh do tell me more facts about the Post Office"
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Sandpit said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    The original plan was for an encryption device to be on Freeview boxes, same as with Sky boxes, but the BBC vetoed the idea because it might lead to their channels being changed to subscription-based services by a future government.

    Broadcast TV, using radio waves, probably only has a handful of years left now anyway.
    How does that work for terrestrial broadcasts? A: It doesn't.

    The largest section of TV consumers receive via digital terrestrial only.
    The original plan, way back when the license fee for TV was invented, was actually encryption. The technology of the time was *just* not capable of the job.

    Broadcast frequencies are extremely valuable - they will be redeployed to provide various networking and phone services.

    There will be an update, similar to the FreeView thing. All TVs sold will have to work via internet connection, boxes to convert will be sold etc etc.
    Sounds right but that's a 10-15 year project.
    It's about 10 years away, I think.

    Planning will have started.

    The frequencies are worth 10s of billions in revenue to the Government. Yearly. The same round the world.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kinabalu said:

    On topic, right now I think him surviving is the value bet. I have it as 60/40 he will and the betting is the opposite.

    I think we are in that 12 hour period in WH 2020 when it looked as if Trump might make it, then things reversed themselves and we all said how we had known it all along, never anything to worry about

    I just wish someone would move the narrative on. Say, Dom Cummings or Lawson would publicly ask S Gray to interview them this morning about the alleged warning emails
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Stereodog said:

    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    So you’re going to “liberate” it from its public service broadcasting responsibility as well. And allow it to take whatever editorial line on news etc it damn well pleases? The Tories don’t complain about what they perceive as “BBC bias” because it is funded by the licence fee! They do so because it is enormously influential and trusted by millions of voters!

    Suggesting that the BBC sees Netflix/Amazon/Disney as competitors is laughable. They don’t due a fraction of things the BBC does (or is required to do as part of its core remit). It’s role isn’t to make money!
    Yes absolutely. Allow it to take whatever editorial line it damn well pleases. Why on earth not.

    The thing that always gets me (and I may have, er, mentioned it on PB a time or two) is when some RT journalist is interviewed on the Beeb and the Beeb guy says "but you're just a state run broadcaster..."

    During the pandemic the BBC's (or at least its website's) was indistinguishable from the government line on the virus. Complete with long story about some 16-yr old who had suffered from Covid and hence we should all be scared. They are at it again today describing (at length) how some young woman with ME is "terrified" of going out because she might catch Covid.
    Because RT IS a state run broadcaster but the BBC isn't. The licence fee meant that it depends on the whole country for it's funding but not the government of the day. Therefore it's remit was to appeal to the whole country who actually pay for it. It may never have done that perfectly but it's a precious idea that I think we lose at our peril.
    Nah that is a distinction without a difference. The government determines how much money the BBC gets, makes appointments to it, and has ultimate sanction.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Labour need to get all over this. Who is their culture spokesperson?


    Rachel Wearmouth
    @REWearmouth
    ·
    5h
    'Vote Conservative to end the BBC' doesn't sound like an election-winning slogan, does it?

    It would be surprisingly popular. However, that's not the choice.

    The choice is:

    Vote Conservative and the BBC will continue but you won't have to pay for it by threat of imprisonment and you'll only pay for it if you want it.

    Or:

    Vote Labour and the status quo remains and your granny might end up in prison for owning a telly.

    Ditching the licence fee actually seems like good, progressive politics to me as it's not the rich who end up in trouble for not paying their licence fee at the end of the day and for younger people who would rather watch Netflix or YouTube the whole concept of the licence fee is just bizarre...

    I'm surprised Labour is so wedded to a telly tax.
    Labour should be massively in favour, of ending the single most regressive tax in the country, which takes up so much court time and prison time, giving people criminal records which can be held against them later in life, for the crime of not contributing to Gary Lineker’s seven figure salary.
    To be fair I doubt it is prison time. More like wasting time in the civil courts.
    The main reason why Labour are so keen on the BBC are because it is part of the 'left liberal' establishment which is a large part of its power base.
    Looking at the BBC, the problem is that a lot of its news coverage etc is not impartial or objective anymore, and the intolerant "woke" agenda has seeped in to a large part of its output.
    We have had 5 years of Conservative government trying to tackle this, but they get nowhere. So it is reasonable to conclude that there is no hope.
    On the other hand, its about £10 a month. Not a big deal compared to the coming doubling of energy bills.
    Not the civil courts, the criminal courts. TV licence violations are 10% of all cases heard by magistrates, and are mostly poor people with chaotic lives, either unable to afford the licence or guilty of nothing more than administrative errors. A disproportionate number of women and minorities receive criminal records for licence fee evasion. The penalty is a fine, and those imprisoned are for failing to pay the fine.

    Slightly out of date source, gives 13% as the figure, nearly 200k prosecutions per year https://fullfact.org/news/do-tv-licence-offences-account-one-ten-court-cases/

    In any other circumstance, Labour MPs would be all over this, but they like the BBC more than they care about the 200k poor people receiving criminal records every year.
    I stand corrected. I thought that the license fee was decriminalised, but see that the government have yet to make a decision about that, so they have chickened out of it. The situation is far worse than I thought, based on that data (which dates back to 2013, but I doubt much has changed). At the very least, the enforcement of the licensing fee should be made a civil matter and no one should be going to prison over it. The whole situation is a complete disgrace.
    The problem with a compulsory-but-decriminalised licence fee, is that you end up with bailiffs going to granny’s house with a court order to seize the TV.

    As I said on yesterday’s thread, trying to explain to a foreigner the concept of the licence fee, is even more difficult than trying to explain the NHS.
    Very different policy in Scotland - procurator fiscal fine only, almost no cases go to court I believe. Been like that for some time; don't think it's anything to do with the SNP particularly, simply that the commercial firm TV LIcensing don't have powers of prosecution in Scotland's courts and the prosecutor fiscal system has different powers to begin with and did it in a common sense way to avoid clogging up the courts.

    https://www.uofgschooloflaw.com/blog/2015/05/12/tv-licenses-and-decriminalisation-has-anyone-noticed-what-happens-in-scotland
    England has nothing to learn from Jocks. Accepted PBfact.
    Only an idiot thinks that. Its always best to look about for examples of best practice and take that on board.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Cookie said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    I was wondering about this the other day. How do the letters, physically, get to SGB? Is there a chance that they may be intercepted somehow? Is it just entrusted to the Royal Mail, and if so do they go to the houses of parliament or to some address in Altrincham and Sale West? Must be an interesting job being his postman.
    Fiddling with someone's Royal Mail post is a criminal offense - 6 months, IIRC?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    HYUFD said:

    boulay said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    It can’t as it is however I think there are two routes to this.

    Firstly inevitably in a few years I can see that there will no longer be the traditional broadcast medium - as all tvs become internet ready, as older generations are replaced by those who have already adopted internet tv/streaming then it’s easier to put all tv behind subscription. So if you want to watch the bbc in the future it’s going to be via streaming and so you will need a log-in anyway as you do with iPlayer etc now.

    In the transition however I don’t think it would be a huge issue if there was a dual approach. Broadcast BBC covered by a smaller basic licence fee covering BBC1,2 and BBC news. Then an additional BBC subscription service where you have all the bbc channels but a much improved IPlayer - the current layout is awful for starters - but more importantly forget Britbox and have all of BBC historic content on the subscription system.

    So for example I would happily subscribe just for access to all the old Michael Wood docs and the BBC’s other history docs from the past. I don’t really like the fact that the BBC take a fee/tax to access a “national asset” but then someone there decides which of the limited catalogue we are allowed to see. If these programmes were paid for by the taxpayer/licence fee payer/British public then they have the right to access them - at present by hiding them behind Britbox it’s already created a two tier service anyway.

    This model could also work for ITV etc - free to air basic channels but then a total subscription service (ad free if you want to pay extra) with all the back care log he at a click.
    Tbf that's the first workable suggestion I've heard.

    Personally, I think digital terrestrial broadcasts will be around into the 2030s.
    However I doubt even the BBC terrestrial broadcasts would be ad free if the licence fee goes
    That wouldn't bother me. ITV/C4/C5, and BBC would be sharing the pot that funds ITVC4/C5 currently though.

    The BBC was established under 'real' Conservative governments, who found the idea of advertising distasteful and saw the benefit of a national broadcaster. Today's so-called Conservatives are just shills for neoliberal oligarchs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2022
    Taz said:

    https://www.cityam.com/youtube-and-netflix-among-most-watched-channels-as-streaming-booms/

    in 2019 Youtube and Netflix were in the top four channels watched in the UK

    The BBC may be more than its TV channels but as fewer and fewer people watch it or engage with it for any reasonable length of time it is going to be the end of the license fee irrespective of the politics.

    Which would mean commercial ads on the BBC for the first time and at least iplayer going subscription service only
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Just listened to the Raworth/SKS clip. Sozza but he had beer and sandwiches in the constituency office when, as Raworth explained to him, beer and sandwiches in the office were explicitly forbidden by the rules.

    So it's a what kind of woman do you think I am situation. We have established that SKS broke the rules, just as BoJo did, it's just a question of to what degree.

    There is a hell of a difference between 2021 when the pubs are open and 2020 when none essential shops were closed.
    Not sure who was doing what when but Raworth quoted the relevant rules to SKS which included, specifically, not having beer or sandwiches with anyone you didn't share a household with.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Cookie said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    I was wondering about this the other day. How do the letters, physically, get to SGB? Is there a chance that they may be intercepted somehow? Is it just entrusted to the Royal Mail, and if so do they go to the houses of parliament or to some address in Altrincham and Sale West? Must be an interesting job being his postman.
    Fiddling with someone's Royal Mail post is a criminal offense - 6 months, IIRC?
    Surely that rule doesn't apply to Johnson and co though does it?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Just listened to the Raworth/SKS clip. Sozza but he had beer and sandwiches in the constituency office when, as Raworth explained to him, beer and sandwiches in the office were explicitly forbidden by the rules.

    So it's a what kind of woman do you think I am situation. We have established that SKS broke the rules, just as BoJo did, it's just a question of to what degree.

    By contrast, It's clear as day to what extent Johnson broke the rules ; allowing friday parties for every week of the entire pandemic, staff sending out letters saying bring your own booze, etc. This is why I don't think he and his loyalists will make much headway with Starmer having a single lunchtime beer. He's just obviously a different personality.
    Yep don't disagree. It seems to have been systemic at No.10. Perhaps however it was because, like SKS said about his situation, at No.10 they were always working and then stopped for a drink from time to time. Doesn't excuse the leaving parties, that said.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Cookie said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    I was wondering about this the other day. How do the letters, physically, get to SGB? Is there a chance that they may be intercepted somehow? Is it just entrusted to the Royal Mail, and if so do they go to the houses of parliament or to some address in Altrincham and Sale West? Must be an interesting job being his postman.
    Fiddling with someone's Royal Mail post is a criminal offense - 6 months, IIRC?
    Yes. Val sends me a Christmas card every Christmas to Norman who sold me this house in 2015 and died the following year. Not only is this poignantly sad, but I think I am commiting an offence by putting the cards in the recycling.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773

    boulay said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    It can’t as it is however I think there are two routes to this.

    Firstly inevitably in a few years I can see that there will no longer be the traditional broadcast medium - as all tvs become internet ready, as older generations are replaced by those who have already adopted internet tv/streaming then it’s easier to put all tv behind subscription. So if you want to watch the bbc in the future it’s going to be via streaming and so you will need a log-in anyway as you do with iPlayer etc now.

    In the transition however I don’t think it would be a huge issue if there was a dual approach. Broadcast BBC covered by a smaller basic licence fee covering BBC1,2 and BBC news. Then an additional BBC subscription service where you have all the bbc channels but a much improved IPlayer - the current layout is awful for starters - but more importantly forget Britbox and have all of BBC historic content on the subscription system.

    So for example I would happily subscribe just for access to all the old Michael Wood docs and the BBC’s other history docs from the past. I don’t really like the fact that the BBC take a fee/tax to access a “national asset” but then someone there decides which of the limited catalogue we are allowed to see. If these programmes were paid for by the taxpayer/licence fee payer/British public then they have the right to access them - at present by hiding them behind Britbox it’s already created a two tier service anyway.

    This model could also work for ITV etc - free to air basic channels but then a total subscription service (ad free if you want to pay extra) with all the back care log he at a click.
    Why would you subscribe to get Michael Wood docs when you can get them for free on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+wood
    To be honest I’m a bit of a fossil and only use YouTube for music videos which at least benefits the artist to an extent.

    I would hope or expect that if the bbc went subscription they would be putting in the effort to remove their content from YouTube etc unless they are able to benefit financially from it being there.

    I have a long running argument with a family member who watches new films free online - he’s a designer for brands etc and I ask him why he thinks it’s ok to do that as if he saw someone had copied his work or was using his work without having paid for it he would go nuts so I’m not a huge fan of people wanting everything for free when it suits them.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Just listened to the Raworth/SKS clip. Sozza but he had beer and sandwiches in the constituency office when, as Raworth explained to him, beer and sandwiches in the office were explicitly forbidden by the rules.

    So it's a what kind of woman do you think I am situation. We have established that SKS broke the rules, just as BoJo did, it's just a question of to what degree.

    There is a hell of a difference between 2021 when the pubs are open and 2020 when none essential shops were closed.
    Not sure who was doing what when but Raworth quoted the relevant rules to SKS which included, specifically, not having beer or sandwiches with anyone you didn't share a household with.
    What 'beer and sandwiches' were specifically stated in the rules? Pull the other one.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    It can’t as it is however I think there are two routes to this.

    Firstly inevitably in a few years I can see that there will no longer be the traditional broadcast medium - as all tvs become internet ready, as older generations are replaced by those who have already adopted internet tv/streaming then it’s easier to put all tv behind subscription. So if you want to watch the bbc in the future it’s going to be via streaming and so you will need a log-in anyway as you do with iPlayer etc now.

    In the transition however I don’t think it would be a huge issue if there was a dual approach. Broadcast BBC covered by a smaller basic licence fee covering BBC1,2 and BBC news. Then an additional BBC subscription service where you have all the bbc channels but a much improved IPlayer - the current layout is awful for starters - but more importantly forget Britbox and have all of BBC historic content on the subscription system.

    So for example I would happily subscribe just for access to all the old Michael Wood docs and the BBC’s other history docs from the past. I don’t really like the fact that the BBC take a fee/tax to access a “national asset” but then someone there decides which of the limited catalogue we are allowed to see. If these programmes were paid for by the taxpayer/licence fee payer/British public then they have the right to access them - at present by hiding them behind Britbox it’s already created a two tier service anyway.

    This model could also work for ITV etc - free to air basic channels but then a total subscription service (ad free if you want to pay extra) with all the back care log he at a click.
    Why would you subscribe to get Michael Wood docs when you can get them for free on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+wood
    To be honest I’m a bit of a fossil and only use YouTube for music videos which at least benefits the artist to an extent.

    I would hope or expect that if the bbc went subscription they would be putting in the effort to remove their content from YouTube etc unless they are able to benefit financially from it being there.

    I have a long running argument with a family member who watches new films free online - he’s a designer for brands etc and I ask him why he thinks it’s ok to do that as if he saw someone had copied his work or was using his work without having paid for it he would go nuts so I’m not a huge fan of people wanting everything for free when it suits them.
    Well said
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Surely if Bridgen and Chope have sent letters, as they are part of a joined-at-the-hip cabal of naysayers, at least 54 letters are already sitting on Brady's desk, including the one he wrote to himself.

    My guess is they are still short. Sounds like maybe 25-30 letters. I presume that any one of the leading leadership candidates can flick a switch and get the remaining 25 or so letters in at any time of their choosing.

    But that's the nuclear option and all of them will wait for Gray.
    It’s not just the 54 letters either, it’s the rebels needing to know that they have 183 MPs on side for the confidence vote. There’s a 12 month ceasefire rule in place, so they only have one opportunity in 2022.
    It's a 12 month ceasefire only if the 1922 committee doesn't change the rules.

    Basically it's hard to see Boris going even though he should and while he remains in power he does permanent harm to the party so for anyone who isn't a out and out tory keeping Boris there is actually a win.
    If Boris does not lose a VONC then Boris supporters are also still likely a majority on the 1922 committee anyway
    AIUI May went under the threat of 50 local parties threatening to exercise their constitutional rights, rather than the 22 committee threatening to change the rules?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    I have a Victorian post office manual that says you don't need to package game birds if they're not too high. Just tie the address label around their neck. Try replicating that service today. I highly recommend R M Ballantyne's excellent novel "Post Haste- A tale of Her Majesty's Mails".

    For the record I'm joking. Of course progress needs change. The novel is real though and a hilarious read. One of the female protagonists has a line saying "Oh do tell me more facts about the Post Office"
    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    I have a Victorian post office manual that says you don't need to package game birds if they're not too high. Just tie the address label around their neck. Try replicating that service today. I highly recommend R M Ballantyne's excellent novel "Post Haste- A tale of Her Majesty's Mails".

    For the record I'm joking. Of course progress needs change. The novel is real though and a hilarious read. One of the female protagonists has a line saying "Oh do tell me more facts about the Post Office"
    A farmer I used to know posted (and probably still posts) game to people who buy it from him direct. He did use special packaging. Which must make a life a little bit nicer for the people driving the vans, sorting etc.

    Though they did need a rule change to stop people posting children, IIRC.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    The BBC is an accident of history, but it is a lucky accident. All governments think that the BBC is against them - and that is mostly a good thing.
    The BBC, like all organisations, makes mistakes but generally the level of television is higher than it would be without it.
    If the government messes too much with the BBC we could end up with Fox 'News'.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    I was wondering about this the other day. How do the letters, physically, get to SGB? Is there a chance that they may be intercepted somehow? Is it just entrusted to the Royal Mail, and if so do they go to the houses of parliament or to some address in Altrincham and Sale West? Must be an interesting job being his postman.
    Fiddling with someone's Royal Mail post is a criminal offense - 6 months, IIRC?
    Yes. Val sends me a Christmas card every Christmas to Norman who sold me this house in 2015 and died the following year. Not only is this poignantly sad, but I think I am commiting an offence by putting the cards in the recycling.
    No return address?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Cookie said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    I was wondering about this the other day. How do the letters, physically, get to SGB? Is there a chance that they may be intercepted somehow? Is it just entrusted to the Royal Mail, and if so do they go to the houses of parliament or to some address in Altrincham and Sale West? Must be an interesting job being his postman.
    The Royal Mail has its own postal unit within the HoC and they deal and distribute the incoming mail.

  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Just listened to the Raworth/SKS clip. Sozza but he had beer and sandwiches in the constituency office when, as Raworth explained to him, beer and sandwiches in the office were explicitly forbidden by the rules.

    So it's a what kind of woman do you think I am situation. We have established that SKS broke the rules, just as BoJo did, it's just a question of to what degree.

    There is a hell of a difference between 2021 when the pubs are open and 2020 when none essential shops were closed.
    Not sure who was doing what when but Raworth quoted the relevant rules to SKS which included, specifically, not having beer or sandwiches with anyone you didn't share a household with.
    Replacing SKS with someone with some charisma wouldn't be a great loss.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    So you’re going to “liberate” it from its public service broadcasting responsibility as well. And allow it to take whatever editorial line on news etc it damn well pleases? The Tories don’t complain about what they perceive as “BBC bias” because it is funded by the licence fee! They do so because it is enormously influential and trusted by millions of voters!

    Suggesting that the BBC sees Netflix/Amazon/Disney as competitors is laughable. They don’t due a fraction of things the BBC does (or is required to do as part of its core remit). It’s role isn’t to make money!
    Yes absolutely. Allow it to take whatever editorial line it damn well pleases. Why on earth not.

    The thing that always gets me (and I may have, er, mentioned it on PB a time or two) is when some RT journalist is interviewed on the Beeb and the Beeb guy says "but you're just a state run broadcaster..."

    During the pandemic the BBC's (or at least its website's) was indistinguishable from the government line on the virus. Complete with long story about some 16-yr old who had suffered from Covid and hence we should all be scared. They are at it again today describing (at length) how some young woman with ME is "terrified" of going out because she might catch Covid.
    To be fair who says that's because its the government line? As it seems indistinguishable from the Grauniad line too and I assure you the Grauniad isn't doing so because the Tories want them to.

    Oh Em Gee we are all going to die is classic media clickbait.
    I am talking about pages upon pages reiterating what the government was saying, interspersed with horror/shock stories of children suffering from Covid and therefore we should all stay in and do what we're told.

    I don't think the Beeb supports the Tories but I do think for the past two years they have seen their role as a Public Service Broadcaster as needing to regurgitate the government's position wrt their virus response. The Graun at least looks at the situation critically. That was absent from the Beeb. And indeed maybe that was/is their role as a PSB but it doesn't mean that the UK should have a PSB in the first place and certainly not one that we all have to pay for.

    I am pro-Beeb but as you and I have discussed many times before I think it should be on a modular subscription basis and if I could be bothered, or had the PB search skills that you have I'd reprint my last "menu" of what should cost what.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    I was wondering about this the other day. How do the letters, physically, get to SGB? Is there a chance that they may be intercepted somehow? Is it just entrusted to the Royal Mail, and if so do they go to the houses of parliament or to some address in Altrincham and Sale West? Must be an interesting job being his postman.
    Fiddling with someone's Royal Mail post is a criminal offense - 6 months, IIRC?
    Yes. Val sends me a Christmas card every Christmas to Norman who sold me this house in 2015 and died the following year. Not only is this poignantly sad, but I think I am commiting an offence by putting the cards in the recycling.
    No return address?
    Just Love from Val
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited January 2022

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    I have a Victorian post office manual that says you don't need to package game birds if they're not too high. Just tie the address label around their neck. Try replicating that service today. I highly recommend R M Ballantyne's excellent novel "Post Haste- A tale of Her Majesty's Mails".

    For the record I'm joking. Of course progress needs change. The novel is real though and a hilarious read. One of the female protagonists has a line saying "Oh do tell me more facts about the Post Office"
    A farmer I used to know posted (and probably still posts) game to people who buy it from him direct. He did use special packaging. Which must make a life a little bit nicer for the people driving the vans, sorting etc.

    Though they did need a rule change to stop people posting children, IIRC.
    It's squeezing them through the letter-box that's tricky.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,915
    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    I have a Victorian post office manual that says you don't need to package game birds if they're not too high. Just tie the address label around their neck. Try replicating that service today. I highly recommend R M Ballantyne's excellent novel "Post Haste- A tale of Her Majesty's Mails".

    For the record I'm joking. Of course progress needs change. The novel is real though and a hilarious read. One of the female protagonists has a line saying "Oh do tell me more facts about the Post Office"
    Ha ha. I suspect that R M Ballantyne is a man. In real life you don't tend to find women desperate for a bit of mansplaining.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    For those that missed it, we learned last night from the Telegraph that Plan B will NOT be rescinded in full, indeed the masking will stay on public transport and in shops.

    As I have said several times, that’s the problem with temporary restrictions. They recall Milton Friedman’s observation that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government programme.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    BiB - typical lefty thinking that people won't be able to think for themselves and will do just whatever the evil right wing media tells them to.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 583

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    I have a Victorian post office manual that says you don't need to package game birds if they're not too high. Just tie the address label around their neck. Try replicating that service today. I highly recommend R M Ballantyne's excellent novel "Post Haste- A tale of Her Majesty's Mails".

    For the record I'm joking. Of course progress needs change. The novel is real though and a hilarious read. One of the female protagonists has a line saying "Oh do tell me more facts about the Post Office"
    Ha ha. I suspect that R M Ballantyne is a man. In real life you don't tend to find women desperate for a bit of mansplaining.
    Is that the Ballantyne who wrote "Coral Island"?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268
    Talking of media past, and media future


    "Average Number of Viewers per Show:

    CNN Primetime: 810,000

    Joe Rogan: 11,000,000"

    https://twitter.com/dandinohill/status/1482736973391532033?s=20


    There it is, right there. Absolutely no-one watches the Woke Bollocks that is CNN, everyone watches Joe Rogan, who is refreshingly open-minded
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    I have a Victorian post office manual that says you don't need to package game birds if they're not too high. Just tie the address label around their neck. Try replicating that service today. I highly recommend R M Ballantyne's excellent novel "Post Haste- A tale of Her Majesty's Mails".

    For the record I'm joking. Of course progress needs change. The novel is real though and a hilarious read. One of the female protagonists has a line saying "Oh do tell me more facts about the Post Office"
    Stereodog said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    That got replaced by telegrams - which were even more frequent and immediate. Which in turn got pushed back by the telephone - which were even more.... etc.

    It's almost like progress involves change.
    I have a Victorian post office manual that says you don't need to package game birds if they're not too high. Just tie the address label around their neck. Try replicating that service today. I highly recommend R M Ballantyne's excellent novel "Post Haste- A tale of Her Majesty's Mails".

    For the record I'm joking. Of course progress needs change. The novel is real though and a hilarious read. One of the female protagonists has a line saying "Oh do tell me more facts about the Post Office"
    A farmer I used to know posted (and probably still posts) game to people who buy it from him direct. He did use special packaging. Which must make a life a little bit nicer for the people driving the vans, sorting etc.

    Though they did need a rule change to stop people posting children, IIRC.
    It's squeezing them through the letter-box that's tricky.
    A very nice innovation from Royal Mail is booked, doorstep pickups of parcels.

    You can buy your postage online, print it and book a collection. All in one integrated, online service.

    I used it a fair bit in lockdown - no standing in queues at the post office.
  • TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    BiB - typical lefty thinking that people won't be able to think for themselves and will do just whatever the evil right wing media tells them to.
    How has Fox News influenced political culture and debate in the US, would you say ?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    Just listened to the Raworth/SKS clip. Sozza but he had beer and sandwiches in the constituency office when, as Raworth explained to him, beer and sandwiches in the office were explicitly forbidden by the rules.

    So it's a what kind of woman do you think I am situation. We have established that SKS broke the rules, just as BoJo did, it's just a question of to what degree.

    There is a hell of a difference between 2021 when the pubs are open and 2020 when none essential shops were closed.
    Not sure who was doing what when but Raworth quoted the relevant rules to SKS which included, specifically, not having beer or sandwiches with anyone you didn't share a household with.
    What 'beer and sandwiches' were specifically stated in the rules? Pull the other one.
    Listen to the clip yourself. At 30 seconds and 1min 26seconds

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MLFB7-gS6I
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    BiB - typical lefty thinking that people won't be able to think for themselves and will do just whatever the evil right wing media tells them to.
    Haha! Whereas Tory accusations of left-wing BBC bias is... fair enough, and needs to be sorted?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Leon said:

    Talking of media past, and media future


    "Average Number of Viewers per Show:

    CNN Primetime: 810,000

    Joe Rogan: 11,000,000"

    https://twitter.com/dandinohill/status/1482736973391532033?s=20


    There it is, right there. Absolutely no-one watches the Woke Bollocks that is CNN, everyone watches Joe Rogan, who is refreshingly open-minded

    To put that in perspective, CNN primetime in the US now gets about the same number of viewers as the C4 teen soap Hollyoaks gets in the UK
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,088

    For those that missed it, we learned last night from the Telegraph that Plan B will NOT be rescinded in full, indeed the masking will stay on public transport and in shops.

    As I have said several times, that’s the problem with temporary restrictions. They recall Milton Friedman’s observation that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government programme.

    Hopefully this will provoke a backbench revolt that will force the Government to back down. As we all know, Johnson's position is very precarious indeed and I'm not sure why he would choose face gagging on trains as his hill to die on.

    If he provokes enough of his MPs into sending in letters then he's toast. The man won't survive a confidence ballot.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    BiB - typical lefty thinking that people won't be able to think for themselves and will do just whatever the evil right wing media tells them to.
    How has Fox News influenced political culture and debate in the US, would you say ?
    US is not my area of expertise so I have no idea.

    But in general the media reflects not directs what people think. People like to read/consume views similar to their own. Quite why Socialist Worker doesn't have the circulation of the Daily Mail is I'm sure down to a right wing media plot.
  • HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Surely if Bridgen and Chope have sent letters, as they are part of a joined-at-the-hip cabal of naysayers, at least 54 letters are already sitting on Brady's desk, including the one he wrote to himself.

    My guess is they are still short. Sounds like maybe 25-30 letters. I presume that any one of the leading leadership candidates can flick a switch and get the remaining 25 or so letters in at any time of their choosing.

    But that's the nuclear option and all of them will wait for Gray.
    It’s not just the 54 letters either, it’s the rebels needing to know that they have 183 MPs on side for the confidence vote. There’s a 12 month ceasefire rule in place, so they only have one opportunity in 2022.
    It's a 12 month ceasefire only if the 1922 committee doesn't change the rules.

    Basically it's hard to see Boris going even though he should and while he remains in power he does permanent harm to the party so for anyone who isn't a out and out tory keeping Boris there is actually a win.
    If Boris does not lose a VONC then Boris supporters are also still likely a majority on the 1922 committee anyway
    The question for the Conservative Party is whether they want to kick the buffoon out now, or wait until after he has taken them to humiliating defeat.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, right now I think him surviving is the value bet. I have it as 60/40 he will and the betting is the opposite.

    I think we are in that 12 hour period in WH 2020 when it looked as if Trump might make it, then things reversed themselves and we all said how we had known it all along, never anything to worry about

    I just wish someone would move the narrative on. Say, Dom Cummings or Lawson would publicly ask S Gray to interview them this morning about the alleged warning emails
    I slept through that - something I'm eternally grateful for. But a similar approach to this Johnson thing is probably not practical. It's a real knockdown dragout affair. Course I wouldn't want to sleep through this one - it's very enjoyable!
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Leon said:

    Talking of media past, and media future


    "Average Number of Viewers per Show:

    CNN Primetime: 810,000

    Joe Rogan: 11,000,000"

    https://twitter.com/dandinohill/status/1482736973391532033?s=20


    There it is, right there. Absolutely no-one watches the Woke Bollocks that is CNN, everyone watches Joe Rogan, who is refreshingly open-minded

    The ultimate irony, of course, is that Trump was probably CNN's lifeblood. The channel's intense struggle against him made for compelling viewing.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    For those that missed it, we learned last night from the Telegraph that Plan B will NOT be rescinded in full, indeed the masking will stay on public transport and in shops.

    As I have said several times, that’s the problem with temporary restrictions. They recall Milton Friedman’s observation that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government programme.

    Whilst I agree my immediate concern isn’t public transport and shops. It is wider “crowded spaces”. Which impacts on my social activity. What are they saying about that?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    edited January 2022

    glw said:

    alex_ said:

    BBC: The largest consumers of the BBC are concentrated in the Tory core vote. The alleged lowest consumers are the U30s.

    It's not alleged, Ofcom measure that sort of thing. It used to be just children and teenagers that watched more Netflix than all BBC output, as far as I can tell from the slighly opaque way the data is presented that now might be true for the under 35s.

    We could be fast approaching the point when Netflix is the top source of television in the UK, a position held by the BBC almost since the invention of television itself.

    Maybe the licence fee should go to Netflix if that's what people are choosing to watch?
    Netflix Premium is £13.99 a month. That is more than the licence fee, and is the one that allows different people to watch different programmes at the same time, like they can with the BBC.
    I've never heard of Netflix Premium. They recently increased their prices so that we now pay £9.99 for three simultaneous screens, something like me while away from home for work, my wife back at home and my daughter at University - something which would require three TV licenses if our devices were plugged in.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Q interesting observation from a couple of MPs is that the proportion of constituents' emails that are calling for the PM to resign is decreasing. One estimates an 80:20 split of angry vs supportive yesterday, but on Friday virtually all correspondents wanted him gone.
    https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1483013668463947777
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Question: If Bojo goes, can Dorries be far behind?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    BiB - typical lefty thinking that people won't be able to think for themselves and will do just whatever the evil right wing media tells them to.
    Haha! Whereas Tory accusations of left-wing BBC bias is... fair enough, and needs to be sorted?
    I don't care, frankly. I couldn't care less about editorial bias because it's up to me to decide whether to consume the output or not. Except that left or right I am forced to pay for the BBC. Which, when written down, sounds absolutely absurd.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    It’s genuinely surprising how anyone can look at American political culture and think we in the U.K. need to be more like that. The defund the BBC campaign, whilst a smokescreen to rally the right behind Boris, is nevertheless another step in that journey.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268
    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    Indeed. I haven't been able to get a sedan chair for months. And my local apothecary has completely run out of re-usable sheep's intestine condoms if I want to take a wench on Westminster Bridge
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    MISTY said:

    Leon said:

    Talking of media past, and media future


    "Average Number of Viewers per Show:

    CNN Primetime: 810,000

    Joe Rogan: 11,000,000"

    https://twitter.com/dandinohill/status/1482736973391532033?s=20


    There it is, right there. Absolutely no-one watches the Woke Bollocks that is CNN, everyone watches Joe Rogan, who is refreshingly open-minded

    The ultimate irony, of course, is that Trump was probably CNN's lifeblood. The channel's intense struggle against him made for compelling viewing.
    Apparently, cable giant John Malone is in talks to buy CNN. That will be very interesting. He's friends with Rupert Murdoch and he is likely to take a hard-headed approach to CNN.
  • Question: If Bojo goes, can Dorries be far behind?

    And Rees Mogg. Who else but an incompetent like Johnson would appoint these fools.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    glw said:

    alex_ said:

    BBC: The largest consumers of the BBC are concentrated in the Tory core vote. The alleged lowest consumers are the U30s.

    It's not alleged, Ofcom measure that sort of thing. It used to be just children and teenagers that watched more Netflix than all BBC output, as far as I can tell from the slighly opaque way the data is presented that now might be true for the under 35s.

    We could be fast approaching the point when Netflix is the top source of television in the UK, a position held by the BBC almost since the invention of television itself.

    Maybe the licence fee should go to Netflix if that's what people are choosing to watch?
    Netflix Premium is £13.99 a month. That is more than the licence fee, and is the one that allows different people to watch different programmes at the same time, like they can with the BBC.
    I've never heard of Netflix Premium. They recently increased their prices so that we now pay £9.99 for three simultaneous screens, something like me while away from home for work, my wife back at home and my daughter at University - something which would require three TV licenses if our devices were plugged in.
    How much is Netflix in the UK?

    Netflix currently offers three pricing plans, each of which have a monthly payment: Basic: £5.99 (up to standard-definition quality and stream to just one device at any one time) Standard: £9.99 (up to high-definition quality and steam to two devices at once) Premium: £13.99 (up to 4K Ultra HD quality and stream to four devices at once) You can check which payment plan you’re on – and change it – in your account settings.

    Read more: https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/tv-providers-and-services/article/what-is-netflix-aBbB84i7gvLv - Which?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited January 2022
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    BiB - typical lefty thinking that people won't be able to think for themselves and will do just whatever the evil right wing media tells them to.
    How has Fox News influenced political culture and debate in the US, would you say ?
    US is not my area of expertise so I have no idea.

    But in general the media reflects not directs what people think. People like to read/consume views similar to their own. Quite why Socialist Worker doesn't have the circulation of the Daily Mail is I'm sure down to a right wing media plot.
    It's much more complex than that, I would say. The media both reinforces, simplifies and accentuates views that people already have, and sometimes helps them to develop entirely new ones.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    Of course we should abolish the TV license - its 2022. But the problem that the Dorries "intelligentsia" have with the BBC isn't the license fee, its that it exists. And even if the "we'll scrap the fee in 2027 3 years after we lose power!!!" threat had any teeth that wouldn't be the end.

    We pay for so much content already. What difference does a BBC subscription make? I'd pay it happily. Spin the commercial arm back out and the BBC can make cash to pay for all the FTA stuff like radio. Done.

    Can someone explain to me how a subscription would actually work for a broadcast service?
    It can’t as it is however I think there are two routes to this.

    Firstly inevitably in a few years I can see that there will no longer be the traditional broadcast medium - as all tvs become internet ready, as older generations are replaced by those who have already adopted internet tv/streaming then it’s easier to put all tv behind subscription. So if you want to watch the bbc in the future it’s going to be via streaming and so you will need a log-in anyway as you do with iPlayer etc now.

    In the transition however I don’t think it would be a huge issue if there was a dual approach. Broadcast BBC covered by a smaller basic licence fee covering BBC1,2 and BBC news. Then an additional BBC subscription service where you have all the bbc channels but a much improved IPlayer - the current layout is awful for starters - but more importantly forget Britbox and have all of BBC historic content on the subscription system.

    So for example I would happily subscribe just for access to all the old Michael Wood docs and the BBC’s other history docs from the past. I don’t really like the fact that the BBC take a fee/tax to access a “national asset” but then someone there decides which of the limited catalogue we are allowed to see. If these programmes were paid for by the taxpayer/licence fee payer/British public then they have the right to access them - at present by hiding them behind Britbox it’s already created a two tier service anyway.

    This model could also work for ITV etc - free to air basic channels but then a total subscription service (ad free if you want to pay extra) with all the back care log he at a click.
    Why would you subscribe to get Michael Wood docs when you can get them for free on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+wood
    To be honest I’m a bit of a fossil and only use YouTube for music videos which at least benefits the artist to an extent.

    I would hope or expect that if the bbc went subscription they would be putting in the effort to remove their content from YouTube etc unless they are able to benefit financially from it being there.

    I have a long running argument with a family member who watches new films free online - he’s a designer for brands etc and I ask him why he thinks it’s ok to do that as if he saw someone had copied his work or was using his work without having paid for it he would go nuts so I’m not a huge fan of people wanting everything for free when it suits them.
    By the same token how come we have to pay for BritBox's BBC output when we have already paid for it via the license fee when it was made first time around.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Q interesting observation from a couple of MPs is that the proportion of constituents' emails that are calling for the PM to resign is decreasing. One estimates an 80:20 split of angry vs supportive yesterday, but on Friday virtually all correspondents wanted him gone.
    https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1483013668463947777

    Hardly surprising. This sounds like Comical Ali trying to pick something positive. Of course it is going to decrease. The people who felt angry about it will have already sent their letter. They are hardly going to do so again ffs!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    IshmaelZ said:

    glw said:

    alex_ said:

    BBC: The largest consumers of the BBC are concentrated in the Tory core vote. The alleged lowest consumers are the U30s.

    It's not alleged, Ofcom measure that sort of thing. It used to be just children and teenagers that watched more Netflix than all BBC output, as far as I can tell from the slighly opaque way the data is presented that now might be true for the under 35s.

    We could be fast approaching the point when Netflix is the top source of television in the UK, a position held by the BBC almost since the invention of television itself.

    Maybe the licence fee should go to Netflix if that's what people are choosing to watch?
    Netflix Premium is £13.99 a month. That is more than the licence fee, and is the one that allows different people to watch different programmes at the same time, like they can with the BBC.
    I've never heard of Netflix Premium. They recently increased their prices so that we now pay £9.99 for three simultaneous screens, something like me while away from home for work, my wife back at home and my daughter at University - something which would require three TV licenses if our devices were plugged in.
    How much is Netflix in the UK?

    Netflix currently offers three pricing plans, each of which have a monthly payment: Basic: £5.99 (up to standard-definition quality and stream to just one device at any one time) Standard: £9.99 (up to high-definition quality and steam to two devices at once) Premium: £13.99 (up to 4K Ultra HD quality and stream to four devices at once) You can check which payment plan you’re on – and change it – in your account settings.

    Read more: https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/tv-providers-and-services/article/what-is-netflix-aBbB84i7gvLv - Which?
    Curious that Netflix is held as model just as it us peaking and losing its creative mojo.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    The BBC is an accident of history, but it is a lucky accident. All governments think that the BBC is against them - and that is mostly a good thing.
    The BBC, like all organisations, makes mistakes but generally the level of television is higher than it would be without it.
    If the government messes too much with the BBC we could end up with Fox 'News'.
    An elderly, quite right wing uncle, of mine said that you only believe the BBC is of no value until you go and live in America and experience their idea of TV
    PBS and HBO are some of the world’s best television.

    CBS and NBC, on the other hand, are indeed some of the worst.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    BiB - typical lefty thinking that people won't be able to think for themselves and will do just whatever the evil right wing media tells them to.
    How has Fox News influenced political culture and debate in the US, would you say ?
    US is not my area of expertise so I have no idea.

    But in general the media reflects not directs what people think. People like to read/consume views similar to their own. Quite why Socialist Worker doesn't have the circulation of the Daily Mail is I'm sure down to a right wing media plot.
    It's far more complex than that, I would say. The media both reinforces, accentuates and simplifies views that people already have, and sometimes develops entirely new ones.

    Again, don't disagree and there are sometimes "new views" but that surely is at the margin. No one here, for example, would read the Graun/Torygraph and have a moment of epiphany while those who don't care as much about politics would not think of picking up a paper of the "opposing" view.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    alex_ said:

    For those that missed it, we learned last night from the Telegraph that Plan B will NOT be rescinded in full, indeed the masking will stay on public transport and in shops.

    As I have said several times, that’s the problem with temporary restrictions. They recall Milton Friedman’s observation that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government programme.

    Whilst I agree my immediate concern isn’t public transport and shops. It is wider “crowded spaces”. Which impacts on my social activity. What are they saying about that?
    Is that the rule currently? In which settings exactly? I actually didn’t know that.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Leon said:

    Talking of media past, and media future


    "Average Number of Viewers per Show:

    CNN Primetime: 810,000

    Joe Rogan: 11,000,000"

    https://twitter.com/dandinohill/status/1482736973391532033?s=20


    There it is, right there. Absolutely no-one watches the Woke Bollocks that is CNN, everyone watches Joe Rogan, who is refreshingly open-minded

    The media landscape has changed profoundly. Free-to-air broadcast TV is diminishing and being replaced by on-demand streamed services. Nothing could do the BBC more harm in the long term than sticking to the current approach of delivering and funding those service. Saving the licence fee will kill the BBC.

    Personally I'd be quite happy for the BBC to receive a generous grant from general taxation to fund most of what it currently produces, provided it makes a serious effort to change how it delivers that programming, and that it make better commercial use of its assets, particularly to sell the progamming overseas to make money for programming in the UK.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,789
    Leon said:

    Talking of media past, and media future


    "Average Number of Viewers per Show:

    CNN Primetime: 810,000

    Joe Rogan: 11,000,000"

    https://twitter.com/dandinohill/status/1482736973391532033?s=20


    There it is, right there. Absolutely no-one watches the Woke Bollocks that is CNN, everyone watches Joe Rogan, who is refreshingly open-minded

    Rogan is good because he represents *you* in the conversation - a bit ignorant (and knows it), easy jokes, relaxed and asks the obvious question.

    Look at the McMaster one from Thursday - drinks, cigars, straight in with a good question and just lets him speak for 5 mins.

    He has lots of mad opinions and stupid guests but he's open to basically anyone and any idea, and let's you make your own mind up. His podcasts make me more "woke" in the same way Guardian opinion pieces make me less woke.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited January 2022
    Sandpit said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    The BBC is an accident of history, but it is a lucky accident. All governments think that the BBC is against them - and that is mostly a good thing.
    The BBC, like all organisations, makes mistakes but generally the level of television is higher than it would be without it.
    If the government messes too much with the BBC we could end up with Fox 'News'.
    An elderly, quite right wing uncle, of mine said that you only believe the BBC is of no value until you go and live in America and experience their idea of TV
    PBS and HBO are some of the world’s best television.

    CBS and NBC, on the other hand, are indeed some of the worst.
    Sandpit said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    The BBC is an accident of history, but it is a lucky accident. All governments think that the BBC is against them - and that is mostly a good thing.
    The BBC, like all organisations, makes mistakes but generally the level of television is higher than it would be without it.
    If the government messes too much with the BBC we could end up with Fox 'News'.
    An elderly, quite right wing uncle, of mine said that you only believe the BBC is of no value until you go and live in America and experience their idea of TV
    PBS and HBO are some of the world’s best television.

    CBS and NBC, on the other hand, are indeed some of the worst.
    There is very little as bad in Western Europe as Fox and OANN, however. Tucker Carlsson, for instance, is now trying to single-handedly lead the anti-democratic counter-revolution to whitewash the 6 January attacks.
  • Sandpit said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    The BBC is an accident of history, but it is a lucky accident. All governments think that the BBC is against them - and that is mostly a good thing.
    The BBC, like all organisations, makes mistakes but generally the level of television is higher than it would be without it.
    If the government messes too much with the BBC we could end up with Fox 'News'.
    An elderly, quite right wing uncle, of mine said that you only believe the BBC is of no value until you go and live in America and experience their idea of TV
    PBS and HBO are some of the world’s best television.

    CBS and NBC, on the other hand, are indeed some of the worst.
    Well maybe, and it was a while since he lived there. I really don't get the right wing obsession with defunding the BBC. It does a good job. The licence fee isn't that onerous. People need to focus their ire on some more important aspects of our society.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Scott_xP said:

    Q interesting observation from a couple of MPs is that the proportion of constituents' emails that are calling for the PM to resign is decreasing. One estimates an 80:20 split of angry vs supportive yesterday, but on Friday virtually all correspondents wanted him gone.
    https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1483013668463947777

    That's OK then.

    Or it's evidence that people who want him gone write spontaneously, while the astroturfers wait to be prompted
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    Then it will be sold off to the highest bidder and subject to editorial bias from whoever's got enough money to own it. Some foreign oligarch, most likely.

    Another great British institution trashed on the altar of neoliberalism.
    BiB - typical lefty thinking that people won't be able to think for themselves and will do just whatever the evil right wing media tells them to.
    Haha! Whereas Tory accusations of left-wing BBC bias is... fair enough, and needs to be sorted?
    I don't care, frankly. I couldn't care less about editorial bias because it's up to me to decide whether to consume the output or not. Except that left or right I am forced to pay for the BBC. Which, when written down, sounds absolutely absurd.
    I disagree with Barty - I'm a big fan of the BBC but even I am growing weary of its output. The New Year's Eve show was a disgrace:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-complaints-nye-fireworks-blm-nhs-b1784293.html

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1542945/bbc-news-new-years-eve-coverage-london-politics-news-spt

  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 395
    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    Indeed. I haven't been able to get a sedan chair for months. And my local apothecary has completely run out of re-usable sheep's intestine condoms if I want to take a wench on Westminster Bridge
    You could get one of those horrible pedal tuk tuk things. Those are basically sedan chairs for the terminaly stupid.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    The BBC is an accident of history, but it is a lucky accident. All governments think that the BBC is against them - and that is mostly a good thing.
    The BBC, like all organisations, makes mistakes but generally the level of television is higher than it would be without it.
    If the government messes too much with the BBC we could end up with Fox 'News'.
    An elderly, quite right wing uncle, of mine said that you only believe the BBC is of no value until you go and live in America and experience their idea of TV
    Given that you are circa 90 years old then your uncle must be 120. Which makes sense as this is an opinion which has not been true since about 1989. American TV used to be crap long long ago, but anyone who has watched the Golden Age of Drama (mostly American, and led by America) knows that it now puts out phenomenal TV in drama, and many many other categories - from sports to current affairs.

    Watch how the Americans cover an election. Super hi tech and slick, it makes us look Neanderthal. It may be biased, but then, if you don't like the bias, you can turn over to a different station and get a different bias. And of course the Americans have this thing called the Internet, with stuff on "Youtube" etc etc



  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Stereodog said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    In a sign of the suspicion sweeping the parliamentary party, it is claimed that Tory whips have been monitoring the approach to the 1922 committee chairman’s office to see who submits letters.

    From the Telegraph. This surely has to be bollocks? Hand delivery? Even when the 1922 Committee was founded there was a functioning postal service.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/16/boris-johnson-grilled-downing-street-parties-tory-anger-boils/

    Postal service was a lot better in those days in terms of numbers of collections and deliveries during the day, and pretty good in terms of time taken to deliver.
    When I was studying Gladstone's correspondence at University he could get 4 deliveries a day in London. He fired off letters like emails. The post is a reminder that things don't always get better as time goes on.
    Indeed. I haven't been able to get a sedan chair for months. And my local apothecary has completely run out of re-usable sheep's intestine condoms if I want to take a wench on Westminster Bridge
    You could get one of those horrible pedal tuk tuk things. Those are basically sedan chairs for the terminaly stupid.
    Apparently those guys also try to charge literally hundreds of pounds to unsuspecting tourists.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2022

    Question: If Bojo goes, can Dorries be far behind?

    And Rees Mogg. Who else but an incompetent like Johnson would appoint these fools.
    Priti Patel, Dorries and Rees Mogg are all Boris loyalists as they all came into the Cabinet when Boris became PM and are on the right of the party
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    alex_ said:

    For those that missed it, we learned last night from the Telegraph that Plan B will NOT be rescinded in full, indeed the masking will stay on public transport and in shops.

    As I have said several times, that’s the problem with temporary restrictions. They recall Milton Friedman’s observation that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government programme.

    Whilst I agree my immediate concern isn’t public transport and shops. It is wider “crowded spaces”. Which impacts on my social activity. What are they saying about that?
    Is that the rule currently? In which settings exactly? I actually didn’t know that.
    Anything inside, “crowded” (ie no social distancing and not defined as hospitality I believe.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Leon said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    The BBC is an accident of history, but it is a lucky accident. All governments think that the BBC is against them - and that is mostly a good thing.
    The BBC, like all organisations, makes mistakes but generally the level of television is higher than it would be without it.
    If the government messes too much with the BBC we could end up with Fox 'News'.
    An elderly, quite right wing uncle, of mine said that you only believe the BBC is of no value until you go and live in America and experience their idea of TV
    Given that you are circa 90 years old then your uncle must be 120. Which makes sense as this is an opinion which has not been true since about 1989. American TV used to be crap long long ago, but anyone who has watched the Golden Age of Drama (mostly American, and led by America) knows that it now puts out phenomenal TV in drama, and many many other categories - from sports to current affairs.

    Watch how the Americans cover an election. Super hi tech and slick, it makes us look Neanderthal. It may be biased, but then, if you don't like the bias, you can turn over to a different station and get a different bias. And of course the Americans have this thing called the Internet, with stuff on "Youtube" etc etc



    That’s total crap about elections. We get actual complete results in the night, not projections. It’s simpler, because it’s simpler. The exit poll has been spot on.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    edited January 2022
    TOPPING said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    If they want to replace the licence fee an alternative that's well-considered must be ready to go.

    Cackhanded short-termist tinkering tomfoolery is what gave us devolved bodies everywhere except England. Lack of planning also meant leaving the EU was handled very poorly indeed.

    Just not liking the licence fee is not sufficient because there has to be something.

    Of course Dorries hasn’t the intelligence for that sort of thing, so she’s just announced that it will go and told the BBC to work out how they are going to be funded in future. Obviously anything they come up with won’t satisfy the Govt one way or another (either because it transfers costs to general taxation, focuses on areas the govt doesn’t support, proposed things which will give it greater independence (and therefore freedom from Govt interference), is unpopular with real Tory core supporters (as opposed to activists), at which point...

    The Government doesn't dictate how Netflix, or Disney+, or Amazon make their money (and they're all commercial free too which used to be the BBCs USP). Why should it instruct a competitor like the BBC to do so.

    Liberated from state influence the Beeb should raise it's revenue however it chooses to do so. It shouldn't have anything to do with politicians and there should be no political interference.
    So you’re going to “liberate” it from its public service broadcasting responsibility as well. And allow it to take whatever editorial line on news etc it damn well pleases? The Tories don’t complain about what they perceive as “BBC bias” because it is funded by the licence fee! They do so because it is enormously influential and trusted by millions of voters!

    Suggesting that the BBC sees Netflix/Amazon/Disney as competitors is laughable. They don’t due a fraction of things the BBC does (or is required to do as part of its core remit). It’s role isn’t to make money!
    Yes absolutely. Allow it to take whatever editorial line it damn well pleases. Why on earth not.

    The thing that always gets me (and I may have, er, mentioned it on PB a time or two) is when some RT journalist is interviewed on the Beeb and the Beeb guy says "but you're just a state run broadcaster..."

    During the pandemic the BBC's (or at least its website's) was indistinguishable from the government line on the virus. Complete with long story about some 16-yr old who had suffered from Covid and hence we should all be scared. They are at it again today describing (at length) how some young woman with ME is "terrified" of going out because she might catch Covid.
    Otoh BBC Scotland was giving several times daily updates on how the EssEnnPee lockdown was destroying hospitality and obsessively trawling for Jocks in Newcastle and Carlisle escaping Sturgeon's iron grip at Hogmanay, so there's obviously some variation in what government lines they take.
This discussion has been closed.