politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big problem with free TV licences for those 75+ is that
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big problem with free TV licences for those 75+ is that staggering one in six of all UK households qualify
From 1980-84 a big part my then job at the BBC was to deal with the PR and political issues relating to the corporation’s prime income source, the TV licence. None of the challenges that was as sensitive or as problematic as what should be done about the oldies who were required to pay the same fee as everybody else.
Comments
-
The entire hippopotamus falls to pieces and spontaneously turns into a pile of invisible smelly strawberries because of the inaccurate use of the word "nonsensical".0
-
William Hague has an article in the Telegraph on the Greek crisis saying, basically, "I told you so.": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11721838/Greece-does-not-mark-the-end-of-the-euro-debacle-merely-the-beginning.html
If the general public do conclude Hague and his fellow sceptics were right about the Euro they'll probably give their views on the coming Euro referendum a bit more weight, simply because they were right before, though they'll need to avoid sounding triumphalist.
Also, any statements by leading Europhile UK politicians in the 90s about how great the Euro would be, and how the UK ought to be in it, can be dug up and thrown at the pro-Europe side today.0 -
When were the Beeb given the power to change legislation? Because they can't expect any favours from this Govt. to do it for them.
In fact, every household should be encouraged to "borrow a crumbly" - get them on the electoral roll at their house, even if they still live in a residential home, to qualify for a free TV licence. As payback for all those martyrs who had their licence fee "secretly" paid....0 -
Morning. Good header Mike, interesting to hear the view of someone who was on the inside of a controversial subject and how they managed to mitigate the effects - although maybe the strategy of paying fines with licence fees would be a little more difficult in today's media environment.
Please correct me if I am wrong here, but is the TV licence not the most regressive tax imposed in the UK today? Students and UB40s pay not the same rate but the same amount as the very richest.
With regard to the politics, burden shifting from the Treasury to the BBC itself effectively removes a subsidy from the BBC which no-one cares about while saving taxpayers a chunk of money. As Mike says it also allows decisions taken in the future on the subject not to affect the govt of the day politically.
With all the talk of big rabbits coming out of small hats, I wonder if part of the strategy will to abolish certain government departments altogether. Closing DCMS for example would have Polly and the luvvies screaming, but the general population are probably now of the opinion that the arts have enough interested wealthy benefactors at a time when the public are to be subjected to serious cuts in services. Other big rabbits might be the combining of Income Tax and NI which was mooted before, a serious cut in Employer NI to facilitate minimum wage rises and some way of counting part of the protected Overseas Aid budget towards the 2% military spending target. Oh, and the 40% rate to 50k all in one go, please George.
PS Do any bookies have Budget Bingo up yet? I'm abroad and can't get to most of their websites.0 -
Morning all.
‘This is pure politics.’ – And rather clever, the BBC Director General appears very happy with the deal, as does the Government – The poor old Guardian however, appears to have been driven to apoplexy by the idea. – Oh well, never mind.
0 -
Indeed. I wonder if there's a couple more where that came from in the Budget - savings that will make the Guardian (and the BBC) go absolutely nuts yet which enjoy widespread support among the C2 class, thus providing media cover for the real savings to be made.SimonStClare said:Morning all.
‘This is pure politics.’ – And rather clever, the BBC Director General appears very happy with the deal, as does the Government – The poor old Guardian however, appears to have been driven to apoplexy by the idea. – Oh well, never mind.
I'm expecting something which will save 5 or 10bn be announced without immediate mention of the number.0 -
.0
-
What Osborne has done is expose the level of State subsidy that is given to the BBC so that they can have their truly absurd manning levels at party conferences, major sporting events and the like along with indefensible levels of executive pay. This is a battle that the BBC will struggle to win.
For me, the most egregious aspect of the current funding system is the criminal penalties imposed almost exclusively on the poor for not having the licence. These run at nearly 200,000 a year so there are plenty of current martyrs to replace those of the 1980s.
Astonishingly this is about 1 in 10 of all criminal prosecutions in this country. The amount of public money spent on this is intolerable as is the absurdity of criminalising so many of our fellow citizens. Including the time wasted in investigating such crimes, processing them through our court system and then the subsequent means courts when the fines are not paid resulting in time in prison in lieu the cost must run into the low billions. It has to stop.
When it does the BBC will need a different funding model. With the ridiculously expensive switch to digital that should not be impossible but we are in the final days of a supposedly "free to air" service that costs us all a fortune.0 -
One thing I found interesting when canvassing this year was the number of people who had specific notices up at their front door denying rights of access related to the Licence Fee, quoting legal chapter and verse... It looked to be quite well organised.DavidL said:What Osborne has done is expose the level of State subsidy that is given to the BBC so that they can have their truly absurd manning levels at party conferences, major sporting events and the like along with indefensible levels of executive pay. This is a battle that the BBC will struggle to win.
For me, the most egregious aspect of the current funding system is the criminal penalties imposed almost exclusively on the poor for not having the licence. These run at nearly 200,000 a year so there are plenty of current martyrs to replace those of the 1980s.
Astonishingly this is about 1 in 10 of all criminal prosecutions in this country. The amount of public money spent on this is intolerable as is the absurdity of criminalising so many of our fellow citizens. Including the time wasted in investigating such crimes, processing them through our court system and then the subsequent means courts when the fines are not paid resulting in time in prison in lieu the cost must run into the low billions. It has to stop.
When it does the BBC will need a different funding model. With the ridiculously expensive switch to digital that should not be impossible but we are in the final days of a supposedly "free to air" service that costs us all a fortune.0 -
Anyway, having got that off my chest I think that today may well prove to be one of the most politically important of this Parliament. Osborne finally has an unfettered chance to set the agenda without having the restraining hand of the Lib Dems to deal with. What will he do with it?
I think he will be thinking about Howe's budget of 1981 and Lawson's of 1984. He will want to set his mark on history and change the political weather. The track record of Chancellors who seek to do this is, at best, somewhat mixed but I do think he will make the attempt.
We will see an agenda which will dominate the rest of this Parliament; that will change the size and nature of the State over a number of years rolling back many of the accretions that occurred under Brown. I have previously commented that it will be eye wateringly tight with, I predict, an accelerated program to eliminate the deficit and start token debt repayment.
That means there will be very little scope for a reduction in the tax burden overall but that does not mean that individual taxes cannot be cut. One possibility has to be excluding family homes of up to £1m from Inheritance tax. But such monies as are available will probably be used to further increase the IT threshold to something like the living wage outside London.
We will have welfare cuts of at least £12bn but I predict that they will be only a part of a larger packet of cuts. If he is to avoid these welfare cuts dominating the headlines outside the Guardian he will need to do something dramatic. My prediction is a significant rise in the NMW.
Osborne has shown comparatively little interest to date in tax simplification. In fact, for understandable reasons, he has been much more focussed on aggressively closing tax loopholes by means of the GAAR, disclosure agreements with foreign countries and now, of course the Google tax on multinationals. I expect more details on that today as well.
The integration of IT and NI has been hinted at in previous budgets but there has been very little of the wide consultation that such a step would require. There may be a repeat of the aspiration but I would be surprised if there is much progress on this today.
For those who will be playing Budget bingo I think the Northern Powerhouse will get more than a mention with a kick start to the infrastructure that is needed to make that any kind of reality.0 -
Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
0 -
Murdoch smiles.
All you need to know.0 -
Smiles? - Uncle Rupert hasn’t stopped laughing since the 7th of May.Jonathan said:Murdoch smiles.
All you need to know.0 -
Advertising revenue is not limitless and with the brand name it has the BBC would attract a fair proportion of the pie that exists. That may be the way it goes with the radio stations. For TV, subscription looks to be the way forward. Again, the BBC brand should ensure that it is able to attract millions of subscribers and also a fair amount of private investment. All it will need is a bit of imaginative leadership.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.0 -
-
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.0 -
Putting up the NMW is going to hit the NHS quite a bit, both directly as we have many low paid employees and indirectly as it will hit privatised support services like portering and also social care. It is going to be even harder to discharge patients.
0 -
I agree with your insinuation that the BBC supports militant Islamic terrorism.Moses_ said:
Funny how the left consistently jump to its defence I wonder why. Axe the telly tax all together. We won't miss it or the BBC.Jonathan said:Murdoch smiles.
All you need to know.
Mind you the terrorists might ( in the interests of impartiality of course)
0 -
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.0 -
Watching Australian, NZ or US TV is pretty mind numbing.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
Once again the Tories are going to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.0 -
Lol - totally agree but that last sentence is a bit of a killer I suspect.SouthamObserver said:
Advertising revenue is not limitless and with the brand name it has the BBC would attract a fair proportion of the pie that exists. That may be the way it goes with the radio stations. For TV, subscription looks to be the way forward. Again, the BBC brand should ensure that it is able to attract millions of subscribers and also a fair amount of private investment. All it will need is a bit of imaginative leadership.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.0 -
Today we find out just how much of a restraining influence the LDs were on the Tories.0
-
@Mr_Eugenides: Difference between Sky and BBC in a nutshell http://t.co/JVCJ9Jee5n0
-
The other thing that ending the licence fee will do is give the BBC unfettered access to world class managerial talent. Basically, it will be able to pay to bring in the very best people, wherever they are in the world, with no fear of any political comeback.felix said:
Lol - totally agree but that last sentence is a bit of a killer I suspect.SouthamObserver said:
Advertising revenue is not limitless and with the brand name it has the BBC would attract a fair proportion of the pie that exists. That may be the way it goes with the radio stations. For TV, subscription looks to be the way forward. Again, the BBC brand should ensure that it is able to attract millions of subscribers and also a fair amount of private investment. All it will need is a bit of imaginative leadership.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
0 -
It will be hard to change the financing model to something sane and still retain the BBC's unique advantages.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The only thing that would do it is a move to a national household tax (i.e. making the licence fee compulsory), which would be a very hot political potato. It is a shame they did not plan for a subscription service during the digital switchover and ensure that all new STBs had a smartcard slot ...
The BBC faces more competition all the time, and is very slow to change. Which is odd as they have some brilliant technical bods in it.0 -
@ZoraSuleman: #Lucasfilm says a 'Han Solo Star Wars' origin movie, to be released in 2018, will be directed by Lego Movie's Christopher Miller & Phil Lord0
-
What the BBC has going for it is the brand name. Other media outlets have to start from scratch with that. A non-licence fee BBC can be pretty confident that it will begin life with many millions of subscribers - probably paying more than they do now - and also open invitations to sit down with any number of deep pocket investors. It took Sky years to get to where it is now. The BBC will be there on Day One. The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe.JosiasJessop said:
It will be hard to change the financing model to something sane and still retain the BBC's unique advantages.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The only thing that would do it is a move to a national household tax (i.e. making the licence fee compulsory), which would be a very hot political potato. It is a shame they did not plan for a subscription service during the digital switchover and ensure that all new STBs had a smartcard slot ...
The BBC faces more competition all the time, and is very slow to change. Which is odd as they have some brilliant technical bods in it.
0 -
Product placement is the future, not just advertisingSouthamObserver said:0 -
The number of people who have by word of mouth discovered that TVLF menaces are just form letters sent to addresses with no TVLF registered is quite startling. It was until about 5yrs ago quite uncommon to find anyone who knew. Nowadays as you note, it's really quite well known as are the Bugger Off notices.
All it takes is one campaigner locally and it catches on like wildfire. Especially amongst those who wouldn't pay for one given half a chance. Happy customers don't act like this. And the idea that putting the TVLF up to compensate for Over 75s getting freebies is just laughable. When you've a declining product that's losing market share - you don't put the price up.
The BBC and their debt collections have lost the Big Brother fear they had with the supposed Detector Vans of the 70/80s. A ludicrous idea, but very effective monster under the bed enforcement monster.MarqueeMark said:
One thing I found interesting when canvassing this year was the number of people who had specific notices up at their front door denying rights of access related to the Licence Fee, quoting legal chapter and verse... It looked to be quite well organised.DavidL said:What Osborne has done is expose the level of State subsidy that is given to the BBC so that they can have their truly absurd manning levels at party conferences, major sporting events and the like along with indefensible levels of executive pay. This is a battle that the BBC will struggle to win.
For me, the most egregious aspect of the current funding system is the criminal penalties imposed almost exclusively on the poor for not having the licence. These run at nearly 200,000 a year so there are plenty of current martyrs to replace those of the 1980s.
Astonishingly this is about 1 in 10 of all criminal prosecutions in this country. The amount of public money spent on this is intolerable as is the absurdity of criminalising so many of our fellow citizens. Including the time wasted in investigating such crimes, processing them through our court system and then the subsequent means courts when the fines are not paid resulting in time in prison in lieu the cost must run into the low billions. It has to stop.
When it does the BBC will need a different funding model. With the ridiculously expensive switch to digital that should not be impossible but we are in the final days of a supposedly "free to air" service that costs us all a fortune.0 -
The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.0
-
Budget predictions.
What won't happen: PB Tories blame LibDem cabinet ministers for budget leaks.
What will happen: George gives full rein to his "son of Brown" tendencies to run the whole government from HMT, so expect decisions on what ought normally to be other departments' policy remits.
What might happen: another omnishambles. Osborne sometimes has a tin ear when it comes to traditional Conservative supporters. Remember the last omnishambles was due to the aggregation of a number of apparently reasonable measures to get rid of anomalies (and which Damien McBride said had all previously been considered and rejected by Gordon Brown).0 -
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
I find this fascinating taste wise.
I went from being the BBC's Greatest Fan. Really. R4 was my default. Working with the org was my dream come true. But then it all fell away from about 2001 and very quickly too. When they tried to be the Official Opposition over Iraq I was truly appalled.
I see maybe four progs a week on BBC4 or BBC2 combined. Nothing else. For radio I go to LBC.
All my viewing is More4, C5, ITV various channels and satellite ones full of US content. I deliberately looked at BBC1 EPG yesterday and there wasn't a single programme in 7 days I would tune into. Not one. I don't use their website, nor watch their news. For that I go to Sky or any of the other newspaper websites.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.0 -
Unless it's improves the quality of it's output, that will be tarnished and count for nothing.SouthamObserver said:
What the BBC has going for it is the brand name.JosiasJessop said:
It will be hard to change the financing model to something sane and still retain the BBC's unique advantages.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The only thing that would do it is a move to a national household tax (i.e. making the licence fee compulsory), which would be a very hot political potato. It is a shame they did not plan for a subscription service during the digital switchover and ensure that all new STBs had a smartcard slot ...
The BBC faces more competition all the time, and is very slow to change. Which is odd as they have some brilliant technical bods in it.
0 -
How much have the BBC spent suppressing the Balen Report, £400,000 plus?
Is that a wise use of licence payers money?0 -
Osborne wants to lead the Tories into the next GE. That will frame this budget and the ones that follow. Thus, he needs to make big cuts now to fund some nice giveaways closer to 2020. This means he will have to plot a path that spreads the pain without harming the 37% of people who vote Tory, while ensuring that the non-Tory majority do not coalesce around Labour next time. It's all very Gordon Brown, but without the loathing of the PM distorting everything he does. All in all, Osborne has a tricky balancing act. However, I expect him to pull it off; not least because Labour - the Stupid Party - will find any number of ways to help him immensely.DecrepitJohnL said:Budget predictions.
What won't happen: PB Tories blame LibDem cabinet ministers for budget leaks.
What will happen: George gives full rein to his "son of Brown" tendencies to run the whole government from HMT, so expect decisions on what ought normally to be other departments' policy remits.
What might happen: another omnishambles. Osborne sometimes has a tin ear when it comes to traditional Conservative supporters. Remember the last omnishambles was due to the aggregation of a number of apparently reasonable measures to get rid of anomalies (and which Damien McBride said had all previously been considered and rejected by Gordon Brown).
On a personal level, if I stay alive and remain a top rate taxpayer I expect to be much better off in 2020 than I am now. So it's not all bad news :-)
0 -
-
I'm not convinced they're all that wonderful, but if you're right then they should have no problem sustaining themselves without a regressive compulsory poll tax.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
Why are people talking about the licence fee ending....as far as I was aware Osborne wasn't ending that in his budget!
While I don't think your average joe loves the BBC as much as your average Guardianista, I don't think they hate it as much as Tories do, or see it as this evil monolith thing.0 -
Times reporting that £1300 tax cuts are on the way for middle class families on 50-100k. And the child tax credit limits will only apply to new applications. 0.5m families get them now for 3 or more kids. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4491054.ece0
-
This.edmundintokyo said:
I'm not convinced they're all that wonderful, but if you're right then they should have no problem sustaining themselves without a regressive compulsory poll tax.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
"The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe."SouthamObserver said:
What the BBC has going for it is the brand name. Other media outlets have to start from scratch with that. A non-licence fee BBC can be pretty confident that it will begin life with many millions of subscribers - probably paying more than they do now - and also open invitations to sit down with any number of deep pocket investors. It took Sky years to get to where it is now. The BBC will be there on Day One. The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe.JosiasJessop said:
It will be hard to change the financing model to something sane and still retain the BBC's unique advantages.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The only thing that would do it is a move to a national household tax (i.e. making the licence fee compulsory), which would be a very hot political potato. It is a shame they did not plan for a subscription service during the digital switchover and ensure that all new STBs had a smartcard slot ...
The BBC faces more competition all the time, and is very slow to change. Which is odd as they have some brilliant technical bods in it.
That's a fairly ridiculous statement.0 -
It can equally be argued that the behemoth that is the BBC holds back innovation.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
So, it's an insoluble problem?JosiasJessop said:
"The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe."SouthamObserver said:
What the BBC has going for it is the brand name. Other media outlets have to start from scratch with that. A non-licence fee BBC can be pretty confident that it will begin life with many millions of subscribers - probably paying more than they do now - and also open invitations to sit down with any number of deep pocket investors. It took Sky years to get to where it is now. The BBC will be there on Day One. The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe.JosiasJessop said:
It will be hard to change the financing model to something sane and still retain the BBC's unique advantages.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The only thing that would do it is a move to a national household tax (i.e. making the licence fee compulsory), which would be a very hot political potato. It is a shame they did not plan for a subscription service during the digital switchover and ensure that all new STBs had a smartcard slot ...
The BBC faces more competition all the time, and is very slow to change. Which is odd as they have some brilliant technical bods in it.
That's a fairly ridiculous statement.
0 -
I don't know about Australian or NZ TV but some of the US output I get on cable here is superb, especially the Fox dramas like Prison Break and The Walking Dead.foxinsoxuk said:
Watching Australian, NZ or US TV is pretty mind numbing.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
Once again the Tories are going to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.0 -
0
-
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.SouthamObserver said:
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese
0 -
So, wait. Can the BBC chose to stop giving TV Licenses to the over 75s?0
-
Many wondered why the BBC didn't want FreeView boxes to require a card to use them. Well one can take the free-to-air notion at face value or realise that it was a massive arse covering exercise to ensure that the TVLF wasn't easy to get rid of and required yet another huge technology change by every household. It was a deliberate move.
Ditto FreeSat.JosiasJessop said:
It can equally be argued that the behemoth that is the BBC holds back innovation.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
The BBC needs to become economically more efficient and should leave to the commercial what is commercial e.g Radio 1 and BBC 3.
In exchange for taking over the over 75s liability it should have asked HMG that more key sports should be free-to-air. If not, it just shows its lack of commercial awareness.
The Guardian is probably moaning because the BBC will have to cut back on its subscriptions - or does it get them free in exchange for being the premier newspaper used?0 -
A fair point, but - again - surely not an insoluble problem. I agree that the soft power aspect of the BBC is very important. It is something that helps distinguish the UK from other medium-sized countries.Jonathan said:
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.SouthamObserver said:
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese
0 -
In the budget, I expect GO to widen the gap between the income being received by those who are employed and those on benefits - this has to be a key part of the budget to improve productivity.0
-
It has put it to the forefront ... it has exposed the fatcat salaries and over manning. Thousands of jobs will go without anything happening to programmes.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
And commercial broadcasters don't care as it's not a profitable service.
What they, local radio, local news suppliers object to is BBC recipes et al - it's crushing the whole marketplace using monies gained by menaces. Ditto all the magazines using related content/expertise.
When I was at BT - we were completely restricted from cross-subsidised products. Broadband prices had to include everything - not just the cost of the BBand bit. If the BBC had to follow similar rules - it would be stuffed.
When you've got 70 odd years of archives and tech and know-how all paid for by a tax - you've got an enormous commercial advantage everyone else had to pay for. The *barrier to entry* is massive and unfair.Jonathan said:
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.SouthamObserver said:
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese0 -
The BBC should just stop the gardening and antiques shows - then the over-75s won't watch.0
-
What about those who are employed and are on benefits?Financier said:In the budget, I expect GO to widen the gap between the income being received by those who are employed and those on benefits - this has to be a key part of the budget to improve productivity.
0 -
There's plenty the BBC does which is beneficial, but that's really not the point.Jonathan said:
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.SouthamObserver said:
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese
The point is the endless bureaucracy and layers of well paid management, the channels of mindless guff for the mass market that could be produced by anyone, the dominance and expansion that threatens existing provision of certain services such as local radio and commercial websites.
There is a place for public service broadcasting - for documentary and investigative journalism, for the World Service and multilingual news websites etc. This bit can be achieved for a small fraction of the cost of the existing BBC, without the regressive tax that literally puts poor people in prison for not paying it.
Edit: In any other circumstance such a regressive tax would be the subject of endless campaigning by the Guardianistas.
Is the plan to have the BBC spend the Budget day talking about the BBC instead of what's in the big red box..?0 -
I'd be a bit more impressed at the sincerity of their global outreach efforts if their entire expensively-produced online TV output wasn't deliberately closed off to everyone in the world without a British IP address. You can't even pay for it FFS.Jonathan said:
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.SouthamObserver said:
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese0 -
How does making work pay help productivity? One of the main reasons that our productivity record is so ordinary is that we have been far more successful than most in bringing marginal employees into the market by making work pay. It has been a success but it has reduced average productivity, not increased it.Financier said:In the budget, I expect GO to widen the gap between the income being received by those who are employed and those on benefits - this has to be a key part of the budget to improve productivity.
0 -
+1edmundintokyo said:
I'd be a bit more impressed at the sincerity of their global outreach efforts if their entire expensively-produced online TV output wasn't deliberately closed off to everyone in the world without a British IP address. You can't even pay for it FFS.Jonathan said:
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.SouthamObserver said:
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese
I have a TV licence yet half the time have no access to their content online because I happen to work abroad.0 -
The simple test for me is this re the TVLF
* If it didn't exist now, would we create it?
* If we did, would we expect everyone under 75 to pay it?
* Would it be a criminal offence not to pay it, even if you don't watch the BBC?
* Would we only give the money to the BBC?
* Would the BBC be able to use it for services and programmes that fell outside news gathering/reporting and public service broadcasting such as factual or childrens programming?
* Would it be acceptable to pay hundreds of staff more than the Prime Minister?
The BBC will be under OfCom shortly - a very good thing IMO.Sandpit said:
There's plenty the BBC does which is beneficial, but that's really not the point.Jonathan said:
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.SouthamObserver said:
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese
The point is the endless bureaucracy and layers of well paid management, the channels of mindless guff for the mass market that could be produced by anyone, the dominance and expansion that threatens existing provision of certain services such as local radio and commercial websites.
There is a place for public service broadcasting - for documentary and investigative journalism, for the World Service and multilingual news websites etc. This bit can be achieved for a small fraction of the cost of the existing BBC, without the regressive tax that literally puts poor people in prison for not paying it.0 -
I agree the BBC has issues, but I find the Tories - and despite the occasional amusing claim the BBC is in their pocket, it is almost always Tories - often take things too far. Anything and everything us taken as a reason why the entire thing should go in the most extreme cases, which is a giant sign that, in those examples, peop,e have a committed view that they are working back from. The solution to every problem etc, meaning they sometimes overreach with the outrage and every BBC story becomes about how it needs to go or be cut back significantly, no matter how minor the story.
It's counterproductive with me, makes me defensive.
That said, I only really watch the news and hignfy on the BBC these days, usually online, sometimes question time or other political stuff I guess, but despite leaning lefty I do think the BBC makes an effort, and I cannot stand overtly partisan media like the mail or the mirror and would hope none of our broadcasters end up like that, I'd be happy to fund a top quality world spanning public broadcaster, but it could be a lot cheaper, cutting back on a lot .
If it isn't sport or American TV, which is several orders of magnitude better than British TV not to mention more plentiful, I'm not as directly affected though, so the gif can probably get away a lot more re the BBC.
Just leave the BBC website alone though, I need that.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Speaking of the BBC, stumbled across most of a documentary (missed the start) about the Hittites on BBC4 last night, which was really rather interesting.0 -
More so when one looks at the failed technical projects the BBC have poured money into in the last decade and quietly shelved. DMI, for example, cost nearly £100 million before it was scrapped.JosiasJessop said:
"The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe."SouthamObserver said:
What the BBC has going for it is the brand name. Other media outlets have to start from scratch with that. A non-licence fee BBC can be pretty confident that it will begin life with many millions of subscribers - probably paying more than they do now - and also open invitations to sit down with any number of deep pocket investors. It took Sky years to get to where it is now. The BBC will be there on Day One. The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe.JosiasJessop said:
It will be hard to change the financing model to something sane and still retain the BBC's unique advantages.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The only thing that would do it is a move to a national household tax (i.e. making the licence fee compulsory), which would be a very hot political potato. It is a shame they did not plan for a subscription service during the digital switchover and ensure that all new STBs had a smartcard slot ...
The BBC faces more competition all the time, and is very slow to change. Which is odd as they have some brilliant technical bods in it.
That's a fairly ridiculous statement.0 -
Global rights are expensive, both in themselves and in this complexity of the negotiations. IPlayer whilst a technical product is also a legal rights product, essentially an extension of terrestrial TV rights.edmundintokyo said:
I'd be a bit more impressed at the sincerity of their global outreach efforts if their entire expensively-produced online TV output wasn't deliberately closed off to everyone in the world without a British IP address. You can't even pay for it FFS.Jonathan said:
Well there are important considerations. For example, the BBC news website operates in 27 languages in difficult countries around the world. It get large local audiences and is a proven part of the UKs soft power.SouthamObserver said:
Freeing up the BBC from the commercial restrictions it operates under currently will do it the power of good. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and the BBC needs the tools to be able to respond. It is the world's most recognised media brand and allowing it to build on that name recognition will be very good for it as an organisation and also for the UK (or the rUK, as the case may be). There is absolutely nothing to fear from a change in financing model and plenty to gain.Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
No one else does it. No one else can do it because its not commercial and other organisations don't have the technical know how. Some wrestle to get a responsive website out in one language let alone 27.
I really can't see the Mail or Guardian figuring out or prioritising how to get a Burmese font to render on a cheap Mokia. If the BBC was purely commercial, I fear the same thing would happen.
www.bbc.com/burmese
To go truly global would require BBC one etc to be commissioned globally from the get go. Maybe that should happen, but its not cheap or trivial to do.0 -
I saw that a while ago, it's quite surprising isn't it.
I thought the lost Egyptian city was a good one. That was 2/3 I think. Explorers were looking for it on the wrong branch of the Nile, and the residents moved it too! Little blighters.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Speaking of the BBC, stumbled across most of a documentary (missed the start) about the Hittites on BBC4 last night, which was really rather interesting.0 -
And all the money they're spending on using brain waves to create mind remote controls for your TV.
That's straight out of Googles blue-sky money pit thinking. TVLF shouldn't be wasted on that. Ever.watford30 said:
More so when one looks at the failed technical projects the BBC have poured money into in the last decade and quietly shelved. DMI, for example, cost nearly £100 million before it was scrapped.JosiasJessop said:
"The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe."SouthamObserver said:
What the BBC has going for it is the brand name. Other media outlets have to start from scratch with that. A non-licence fee BBC can be pretty confident that it will begin life with many millions of subscribers - probably paying more than they do now - and also open invitations to sit down with any number of deep pocket investors. It took Sky years to get to where it is now. The BBC will be there on Day One. The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe.JosiasJessop said:
It will be hard to change the financing model to something sane and still retain the BBC's unique advantages.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The only thing that would do it is a move to a national household tax (i.e. making the licence fee compulsory), which would be a very hot political potato. It is a shame they did not plan for a subscription service during the digital switchover and ensure that all new STBs had a smartcard slot ...
The BBC faces more competition all the time, and is very slow to change. Which is odd as they have some brilliant technical bods in it.
That's a fairly ridiculous statement.0 -
Miss Plato, I saw the Egyptian one (Luxor?) during the series' original run, which was a while ago now. The archaeological confusion was quite understandable.
F1: as well as Raikkonen, Button's place may be under threat (although it's Maybe rather than the Probably of the Finn's departure): http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/334376820 -
I think your second point is spot on. Those that hate it really hate it, and you can see some really lazy stuff from otherwise fine pundits when it comes to the BBC as I feel some forget the need to justify their intense response to every minor issue.The_Apocalypse said:Why are people talking about the licence fee ending....as far as I was aware Osborne wasn't ending that in his budget!
While I don't think your average joe loves the BBC as much as your average Guardianista, I don't think they hate it as much as Tories do, or see it as this evil monolith thing.
On your first point, it seems everyone including the BBC feel the licence fee will not last much longer . This measure feels like a short term thing as Osborne doesn't want to deal with the hassle of doing so right now is all.0 -
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
The technical stuff can probably be sorted. The question is whether the timeframe is acceptable, and the cost to the consumers and service users not too onerous.SouthamObserver said:
So, it's an insoluble problem?JosiasJessop said:
"The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe."SouthamObserver said:
What the BBC has going for it is the brand name. Other media outlets have to start from scratch with that. A non-licence fee BBC can be pretty confident that it will begin life with many millions of subscribers - probably paying more than they do now - and also open invitations to sit down with any number of deep pocket investors. It took Sky years to get to where it is now. The BBC will be there on Day One. The technical stuff can all be sorted; that is just a matter of timeframe.JosiasJessop said:
It will be hard to change the financing model to something sane and still retain the BBC's unique advantages.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories understand how popular the BBC is. They are not going to get rid of it. They will seek to change the financing model, which is fair enough.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
The only thing that would do it is a move to a national household tax (i.e. making the licence fee compulsory), which would be a very hot political potato. It is a shame they did not plan for a subscription service during the digital switchover and ensure that all new STBs had a smartcard slot ...
The BBC faces more competition all the time, and is very slow to change. Which is odd as they have some brilliant technical bods in it.
That's a fairly ridiculous statement.
It is far from a given deal, and the BBC will need political capital to do it, which they are very short of.0 -
I believe it was Amarna - the new city built by Akhenaten as a contender to Luxor.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, I saw the Egyptian one (Luxor?) during the series' original run, which was a while ago now. The archaeological confusion was quite understandable.
0 -
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
Goodness me! Journalism's job is to speak truth to power. Sometmes they will annoy them.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
I guess you would have preferred Panorama not to have exposed corruption in Fifa, which if I recall really annoyed Cameron at the time.
0 -
Mr. StClare, that Akhenaten chap was a bit of an oddball. Not that up on Egypt, but I do remember seeing a bit about him and Nefertiti (beyond the rubbish modern day copy of her famous bust [ahem] recently unveiled to general contempt).0
-
Or to give prominent coverage to a possible Labour/SNP deal during the general election, to the frustration and anger of Labour:Jonathan said:
Goodness me! Journalism's job is to speak truth to power. Sometmes they will annoy them.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
I guess you would have preferred Panorama not to have exposed corruption in Fifa, which if I recall really annoyed Cameron at the time.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/bbc-labour-election
All sides believe the BBC is biased against them.
0 -
Mr. Jonathan, the BBC political editor apologised for not revealing the scale of the Blair-Brown feuding 10 years after he knew about it. That's hardly speaking truth to power.
Think it's worth saying there's a general lacklustre approach to political journalism. Topics are treated superficially and dumbed down, interviews are used to try and trap politicians and claim scalps, and there's no real effort to actually explain even the most simple and important subjects (the difference between debt and deficit).0 -
Are you defining the productivity of the whole nation or just of those in work?DavidL said:
How does making work pay help productivity? One of the main reasons that our productivity record is so ordinary is that we have been far more successful than most in bringing marginal employees into the market by making work pay. It has been a success but it has reduced average productivity, not increased it.Financier said:In the budget, I expect GO to widen the gap between the income being received by those who are employed and those on benefits - this has to be a key part of the budget to improve productivity.
0 -
kle4,
" I do think the BBC makes an effort .. "
It makes a determined effort to be neutral with most things but there seem to be red lines.
Global warming is always correct and must be supported, diversity is any form is sacrosanct and the EU is an institution made in heaven. Once you accept these exceptions, the BBC does its job.
John Inverdale still hasn't read the script. During the Serena Williams quarter final, he pointed out that Centre Court was only one third full. Cue an embarrassed silence from his female co-commentator. I think his days are numbered.
I don't particularly like tennis and women's tennis bores me, but I will watch the prettier ones. My chances of a job with the BBC are slightly less than nil.
0 -
If the BBC is as wonderful as its supporters claim, there is no doubt the public would be prepared to pay for it. There are fewer things more unjust than the poll tax imposed on the public to pay for the state broadcaster. The BBC should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The Byzantine and authoritarian system of regulating radio and television presently contained in the Communications Act 2003 should also be scrapped. Unfortunately, this government, as ever, is only prepared to make cosmetic changes rather than the necessary reforms.0
-
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...SouthamObserver said:
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
Mr Dancer, most journalists don't seem to know the difference between debt and deficit themselves, otherwise they would correct politicians of all sides who for whatever reason seem determined to confuse the terms themselves.Morris_Dancer said:Think it's worth saying there's a general lacklustre approach to political journalism. Topics are treated superficially and dumbed down, interviews are used to try and trap politicians and claim scalps, and there's no real effort to actually explain even the most simple and important subjects (the difference between debt and deficit).
How many of them would believe the fact that cash public spending went up every year of the last Parliament, for example?0 -
As I say, issues covered in a way that the Tories do not like.MarqueeMark said:
I mean current affairs production values endlessly slanted with a liberal leftist agenda. It's not exactly subtle...SouthamObserver said:
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
0 -
Or possibly holding "secret" meetings between BBC Directors and the Leader of the Opposition in which the election strategy was discussed, something to do with "weaponizing" as I recall it. As coincidence would have it the BBC then spent the whole Christmas period covering the alleged crisis in our hospitals, which for some reason no other channel was the slightest bit interested in, and which for some equally unfathomable reason didn't mention hospitals in Wales even once.SouthamObserver said:
By "undermine" you mean not cover issues in the way the government would like them covered, of course.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.html0 -
The BBC s output has been pretty dire of late. Apart from the often great history programs, what are we really paying for that I couldn't choose to get via sky , Netflix , Amazon , etc? Coupled with it loss of key sporting events, the license fee is becoming harder and harder to justify. I used to think adverts were a great hindrance, but with catch up you can simply skip these now- what's to stop it reverting to an advertising model?0
-
Mr. CD13, didn't watch that match, but glad to hear some straight talking from a commentator.
0 -
Jonathan said:
Goodness me! Journalism's job is to speak truth to power. Sometmes they will annoy them.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
I guess you would have preferred Panorama not to have exposed corruption in Fifa, which if I recall really annoyed Cameron at the time.
Well.. "if we win the election" CF J Naughtie esq is hardly balanced is it... people have long memories.
Pretty much all The BBC's output on austerity has been to show how cuts affect people negatively.
Have they done any programmes on how people are now in work contributing to the economy.. If they have please tell me, I cant recall any programmes of that ilk and even if there have been, did they get the same prominence as those nasty Tories type programmes we have seen in the last 5 yrs.
0 -
As viewers increasing skip adverts, the value of those adverts to advertisers, and hence the money they are prepared to pay for them is going to drop. I can't see advertising being a viable way to fund broadcasting in the medium term for this reason.Razedabode said:The BBC s output has been pretty dire of late. Apart from the often great history programs, what are we really paying for that I couldn't choose to get via sky , Netflix , Amazon , etc? Coupled with it loss of key sporting events, the license fee is becoming harder and harder to justify. I used to think adverts were a great hindrance, but with catch up you can simply skip these now- what's to stop it reverting to an advertising model?
0 -
Thanks for the clarification. I wonder what Labour's stance on this issue might be? Since it looks like the government will attempt to phase it out through piecemeal changes, I doubt radical reform is going to happen in the next five years.kle4 said:
I think your second point is spot on. Those that hate it really hate it, and you can see some really lazy stuff from otherwise fine pundits when it comes to the BBC as I feel some forget the need to justify their intense response to every minor issue.The_Apocalypse said:Why are people talking about the licence fee ending....as far as I was aware Osborne wasn't ending that in his budget!
While I don't think your average joe loves the BBC as much as your average Guardianista, I don't think they hate it as much as Tories do, or see it as this evil monolith thing.
On your first point, it seems everyone including the BBC feel the licence fee will not last much longer . This measure feels like a short term thing as Osborne doesn't want to deal with the hassle of doing so right now is all.0 -
Well quite, we also had "Meet the Kippers" and the drama about Farage becoming PM. I don't recall seeing anything similar about "Meet the Guardianistas" or about Natalie Bennett becoming PM. A drama considering the implications of the Green parties policies would have been most enlightening for the electorate.SquareRoot said:Have they done any programmes on how people are now in work contributing to the economy.. If they have please tell me, I cant recall any programmes of that ilk and even if there have been, did they get the same prominence as those nasty Tories type programmes we have seen in the last 5 yrs.
0 -
A small part of me does think, given everything, what effect did those programmes actually have?SquareRoot said:Jonathan said:
Goodness me! Journalism's job is to speak truth to power. Sometmes they will annoy them.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
I guess you would have preferred Panorama not to have exposed corruption in Fifa, which if I recall really annoyed Cameron at the time.
Well.. "if we win the election" CF J Naughtie esq is hardly balanced is it... people have long memories.
Pretty much all The BBC's output on austerity has been to show how cuts affect people negatively.
Have they done any programmes on how people are now in work contributing to the economy.. If they have please tell me, I cant recall any programmes of that ilk and even if there have been, did they get the same prominence as those nasty Tories type programmes we have seen in the last 5 yrs.0 -
If you venture abroad again - I can recommend Egypt most highly if you discount the very bold merchants.
With the right guide - you'll learn so much. Ours was superbly entertaining and very knowledgeable. He'd knock the socks off most docu presenters.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. StClare, that Akhenaten chap was a bit of an oddball. Not that up on Egypt, but I do remember seeing a bit about him and Nefertiti (beyond the rubbish modern day copy of her famous bust [ahem] recently unveiled to general contempt).
0 -
You must of missed Martin Sorrell's desperate pleas earlier this year to get Netflix to start including adverts in their streams...Indigo said:
As viewers increasing skip adverts, the value of those adverts to advertisers, and hence the money they are prepared to pay for them is going to drop. I can't see advertising being a viable way to fund broadcasting in the medium term for this reason.Razedabode said:The BBC s output has been pretty dire of late. Apart from the often great history programs, what are we really paying for that I couldn't choose to get via sky , Netflix , Amazon , etc? Coupled with it loss of key sporting events, the license fee is becoming harder and harder to justify. I used to think adverts were a great hindrance, but with catch up you can simply skip these now- what's to stop it reverting to an advertising model?
From memory the response could be reduced down to 7 letters including 3 f's0 -
It's always been a mystery to me how people can sit still long enough to watch TV. Can't they hear the clock ticking? But the Beeb's library of (often live) radio sound recording, especially music, is stupendous and unique. I would happily pay for a radio licence, at least as long as the decent fidelity of VHF FM continues.foxinsoxuk said:
Watching Australian, NZ or US TV is pretty mind numbing.logical_song said:
The BBC is one of the good things about living in this country. If it is diminished and we start moving towards Fox type TV the Tories will not be forgiven.foxinsoxuk said:Once more we see how profligate Gordon was with other peoples money.
I cannot see the Licence fee lasting much longer. There are so many other ways to access content now. There is not enough advertising revenue to go around so some sort of subscription model is probably needed. It is a pity because for all its faults I love the BBC and hardly watch other broadcasters apart from Channel 4. When away from the UK I miss the intelligence of Radio 4, the specialist music of Radio 6, the Leicester City away games on Radio Leicester, the documentaries on BBC 4 etc etc.
Once again the Tories are going to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.0 -
They reinforced the BBC Groupthink of "How could anybody in their right mind vote Tory?"BannedInParis said:
A small part of me does think, given everything, what effect did those programmes actually have?SquareRoot said:Jonathan said:
Goodness me! Journalism's job is to speak truth to power. Sometmes they will annoy them.MarqueeMark said:
The Govt. might have been less antagonised if the BBC had not been trying so very hard to undermine that same Govt....Jonathan said:The tragedy about this political attack is that the BBC is one of the few World class digital outfits this country has. The govt should be shoving it to the forefront not trying to undermine it.
I guess you would have preferred Panorama not to have exposed corruption in Fifa, which if I recall really annoyed Cameron at the time.
Well.. "if we win the election" CF J Naughtie esq is hardly balanced is it... people have long memories.
Pretty much all The BBC's output on austerity has been to show how cuts affect people negatively.
Have they done any programmes on how people are now in work contributing to the economy.. If they have please tell me, I cant recall any programmes of that ilk and even if there have been, did they get the same prominence as those nasty Tories type programmes we have seen in the last 5 yrs.0
