UK Politics: Testing, testing, one two free

[Derfel Cadarn]

Johnson winning hearts and minds in his constituency. Not a recent clip but I suspect the same sentiment stands, x10

 

[Maltaran]

 

[Spockydog]

While the sentiment is to be applauded, I'm sorry, but this lot can get in the fucking sea. These are literally the most annoying twats ever to upload anything to the web. And I'm using literally literally.

[Spockydog]

Gavin Williamson is getting a knighthood, apparently. I guess he must know where the bodies are buried.

[The Anti-Targ]

21 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

While the sentiment is to be applauded, I'm sorry, but this lot can get in the fucking sea. These are literally the most annoying twats ever to upload anything to the web. And I'm using literally literally.

As far as I know, twats lack the opposable thumbs needed to be able to upload videos to the web, so I call BS on your literally being used literally.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

19 hours ago, Werthead said:

I think what happens next is a concern. Starmer is unexciting, but more trusted and seen as being more competent than Johnson (and much moreso than Corbyn). He is seen as much more of an electoral threat, especially in the old Labour seats where people "lent" the Tories votes in return for getting Brexit done and may return to their traditional loyalties afterwards. So the next election is definitely seen as being harder than the 2019 one (which probably ended up being easier than expected, thanks to Boris's greater-than-expected personal charisma) for the Conservative Party. That's why they kept BoJo, because he still seemed to have that touch with the population at large despite misgivings about him in the Tories on numerous levels. Right now, he seems to have lost that popular touch and is seen as a liability. Anyone else would be an improvement, though all the candidates have weaknesses. A couple of them even have (from a certain point of view) strengths.

How did that saying go again.

When you are lying for the big dog, you end up with fleas. I think that is the lesson for the Tories.

Anyway, like you said. Starmer is thankfully not Corbyn. Who should've been shot to the moon and beyond after the last election - actually already before that, as the writing had been on the wall for a while. 

[dog-days]

The shitty conniving Tory bastards are at it again. BBC Licence Fee to be frozen, then abolished in 2027. Alternatives to include privatisation or a switch to direct government funding. 

It's a repeat of the same tactics they've been using with public libraries and the NHS. Cut after cut after cut. So that when they no longer function, some smug member of the inner circle with a crocodile smile and a loaded bank balance can say: "But look, it's not working. Better just get rid of it then since it's no longer fit for purpose." 

[Derfel Cadarn]

43 minutes ago, dog-days said:

The shitty conniving Tory bastards are at it again. BBC Licence Fee to be frozen, then abolished in 2027. Alternatives to include privatisation or a switch to direct government funding. 

It's a repeat of the same tactics they've been using with public libraries and the NHS. Cut after cut after cut. So that when they no longer function, some smug member of the inner circle with a crocodile smile and a loaded bank balance can say: "But look, it's not working. Better just get rid of it then since it's no longer fit for purpose." 

BBC need to declare war, and cancel all the radio shows and TV shows Tory voters like.

Kill Eastenders and say its all Dorries’ fault. 
The NHS need to declare war too, and remove Tory MPs from GP rolls. Refuse them hospital treatment for all but emergencies. 

[A wilding]

And particularly annoying is the timing. A further attempt to distract and "move on" from Johnson's current crisis. All part of a campaign to keep Johnson in No 10 just at little bit longer with a psychopathic disregard as to the cost to the country or to anything other than himself. And this move is another from the Trump playbook - hit people with so many appalling things that they can't react to them all and pushback gets scattered and confused.

[Heartofice]

At some point we are going to have to work out what to do with the BBC because I sure as shit resent being forced to pay money for something I mostly don’t use. It’s hard to justify its existence in current form.

[DaveSumm]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

At some point we are going to have to work out what to do with the BBC because I sure as shit resent being forced to pay money for something I mostly don’t use. It’s hard to justify its existence in current form.

For some reason it didn’t occur to me till recently to actually look up what I need a license for, and I don’t watch or use any of it. So I cancelled. I don’t watch any live TV, and don’t use iPlayer. That’s it. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

It really isn't hard to justify.

If you believe it is in the public interest to have a news organization outside commercial interest.

I think pretty much any reasonable person will agree that killing the BBC and have it replaced by one of Rupert's propaganda outlets is a horrifying idea.

[Spockydog]

Public backlash incoming. I guarantee there will be another u-turn.

[Werthead]

The problem with the BBC is also its strength: its provision of programmes for science, history, education, the arts, children, and minority groups like the disabled and Welsh-speakers (the BBC helps subsidise S4C, for example), not to mention its regional programming. If the BBC could just say fuck it and drop those things, then it could survive as a much smaller, leaner operation on a Netflix-style arrangement with dramas, comedies, Attenborough shows, news and maybe BBC Radio 1, 2 and 4, possibly with some advertising provision (although various studies have warned that the BBC simply bringing in adverts won't work because it would either require every TV-advertising company in the UK to double their advertising budget or halve the amount they pay to other commercial channels to also advertise on the BBC, which would result in jack shit revenue for the BBC and a massively-reduced income for ITV, Channel 4 and everyone else). With those things, the BBC becomes untenable.

I believe recent figures (Feb 2020) show that 91% of the British adult population uses the BBC at least once per week. So for the 9% of people who don't use it at all every week (and of course it's possible they do use it much less frequently than once per week, but still use it a few times per year), there should be a provision in place so they can cut the service altogether more easily.

Of course, I suspect if you canvassed people, you'd find a bit more than 9% of UK adults who say they don't use it, but, in fact, do use it regularly so they can talk regularly about its evil wokeness, and if given the chance would happily drop paying the licence fee but continue using the service to keep tabs on it.

The main lesson I hope the BBC learns here is that cosying up to the government and, at times, acting as its official propaganda wing is no guarantee that the government won't still use you as a punching bag and shit on you from a very great height. Particularly comical has been Conservatives criticising Johnson publicly and volubly (sometimes on the BBC!) then criticising the BBC for reporting them criticising Johnson, and using that as evidence that it is partisan.

[Heartofice]

41 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It really isn't hard to justify.

If you believe it is in the public interest to have a news organization outside commercial interest.

I think pretty much any reasonable person will agree that killing the BBC and have it replaced by one of Rupert's propaganda outlets is a horrifying idea.

The bbc isn’t just news 

I’ll expand on that. I do believe it’s important to have a public service provider which isn’t beholden to commerical pressure , and there are certain services it should be there to fill that commerical channels do not.

If it were up to me I would just get rid of all their tv channels, except for news , childrens tv and maybe one of two niche services. I don’t see that they provide value for money in terms of creating entertainment or that it should be something I should be paying for. Why am I paying so other people can watch Eastenders and Strictly? Keep their online services mostly. Considering that such a huge chunk of their budget goes on BBC1 you could then get a far more slimmed down service for a lower price.

And I really don’t care about all the Wokery that goes on at the BBC, there is hardly anything unique in that. I just don’t see how they fit in the current entertainment environment, they have no real place trying to compete with ITV garbage.

 

[dog-days]

34 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The problem with the BBC is also its strength: its provision of programmes for science, history, education, the arts, children, and minority groups like the disabled and Welsh-speakers (the BBC helps subsidise S4C, for example)

Only since 2013 - prior to that it was funded by government grant. The shift to being funded by the BBC represented a cut to S4C's budget; it had to share a part of a shrinking cake. The move was very controversial at the time. God knows what'll happen to it now. 

The BBC hasn't been at its best for some years, but despite all the financial pressure, and the kow-towing to the government and pressure groups, it still manages to produce some fine programmes here and there - intermittently on TV, regularly on radio (I'm thinking of the likes of More or Less on Radio 4). 

[john]

Kind of ironic that part of the complaint is apparently that everybody at the institution of the BBC comes to think the same way. Hmm.

[Zorral]

Without the BBC a whole buncha of us in the US would have nothing to watch! 

[Werthead]

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Without the BBC a whole buncha of us in the US would have nothing to watch! 

All the stuff handled by BBC Enterprises, BBC America, Britbox etc is done on a commercial basis already, so those would not be impacted in the short term. In fact, they may feed into the model the BBC as a whole has to adapt to in order to survive.

[Zorral]

I didn't quite understand that, as BBC is already doing that -- even for our own very pale version, PBS -- Public Broadcasting System -- for which many of its most popular scripted dramas, for the Masterpiece series, like the reboot of Poldark and All Creatures Great and Small, and the Masterpiece Mysteries series, are from the BBC.

Acorn and Britbox, I think, have been doing some original programing, helping to fund the shows, particularly, lately, those out of Australia and New Zealand.

But then, so they have, as has Netflix -- as when it took over funding for the last seasons of The Last Kingdom, and done that with ITV too.

A little murky to me, but I'm so happy to have these series available for watching here.