General British politics discussion thread

breezy1985 · 29-09-2020 11:47am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yes, you do if you watch or stream any live TV.

The whole in the getting older and watching the BBC argument is house prices IMO. I'm inferring that you're arguing that as people age, they start families, buy houses and sit together to watch TV in the evening. Property prices stand in the way of that life for many people and since they're living in houseshares and consuming Netflix and social media then I don't see them switching to the BBC any time soon.

That's what I said watch any live TV so why are you correcting me.

And it's not that people settle down and have houses. The reason the BBC doesn't suit young people is because it usually takes along time for staff and the likes to work their way up but as you get older the people in the positions of power are your age and more in tune to what you want. When an 18 to today turns 50 in the future TV will reflect what he wants and everyone will be having the exact same argument about future 18yo. Sure all the old fogies on RTE now like Darcy were put there to be down with the kids back in the day

Also as people get older they are more likely to be interested in current affairs shows as they are more engaged in and affected by politics as they start families and hopefully have settled jobs

Sam Russell · 29-09-2020 11:53am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yes, you do if you watch or stream any live TV.

The whole in the getting older and watching the BBC argument is house prices IMO. I'm inferring that you're arguing that as people age, they start families, buy houses and sit together to watch TV in the evening. Property prices stand in the way of that life for many people and since they're living in houseshares and consuming Netflix and social media then I don't see them switching to the BBC any time soon.

The Irish Gov has refused to raise the TV licence for many years as, I believe, a way of curbing RTE and to try and put manners on them. I believe the UK are doing something similar.

However, I believe the BBC has grown too big, and has branched into commercial operations, like BBC World, to increase their income and reach. Now Bus Éireann are restricted on those routes they can get subsidy on and have to make a profit on commercial routes where they cannot get a subsidy. Perhaps a similar system should work for publicly funded broadcasters.

The funding should not be subscriber based but be a universal charge because if it was just subscriber based, it would need to chase subscribers and it would lose its public service remit - and it would wither away and when it was gone, it could not be replaced.

The simplest model is to put a charge on the electricity bill - cheap to collect and difficult to avoid.

quokula · 29-09-2020 11:54am

I think tv vs streaming and public service vs commercial are two different arguments.

There's room for the BBC to increase and evolve their online output (which they've been doing), but fundamentally I think it is important to have a well funded public service broadcaster. You could probably argue against Strictly and Graham Norton etc, but things like their nature documentaries are second to none and it's really important to have educational and informative content out there that isn't entirely dependent on making enough income to cover its costs.

Unfortunately the Tories have been exerting a huge amount of influence over the BBC in recent years since Cameron started putting funding pressure on them, so you could argue that their news and current affairs output is anything but public service, which is a hard problem to solve.

I guess this is one of the reasons why, in theory, it's better to have a licence fee than funding it from general taxation which any given government could hang over their heads. In reality the government is just hanging dropping the licence fee over their head which is the same thing.

Hermy · 29-09-2020 1:00pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

...the BBC is often unsurpassed when it comes to drama, documentary and other output...

That may have been the case once upon a time but not any more.

This is especially so with BBC4 which is now dominated by endless repeats.

Lemming · 29-09-2020 1:06pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Also, on top of the culture wars, who do you think stands to benefit of the BBC is disbanded/defunded? Sure it would help the politicians to some extent, although I am not overly convinced. But it would certainly remove a major competitor for the likes of Sky, ITN etc.

quokula wrote: »

The weird irony is that in the past few years, the BBC's news output has often been well to the right of the likes of Sky and ITN. While nowhere near as bad as the hellscape of the UK newspapers, they were always the most willing TV channel to give extreme brexiteers / climate deniers / out and out racists a platform in the name of "balance" while commercial news channels tend to be much more fact-based. At least until Andrew Neil's new channel gets going.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Tory ministers refuse to appear on Ch4 news.

The above behaviour on the part of the BBC towards giving "equal footing" to Brexiteer bullsh1ttery and reality is down to the Tories stuffing the top ranks of the BBC with 'yes' men. Removal of the BBC would remove any level of control they could exert over senior appointments, at least by direct means. Need to be on the board of directors of a private company to influence that sort of thing. That means a measure of loss of control for the Tories (or indeed any government of the day) and a loss of control regards the narrative put across the television screens.

Joe_ Public · 29-09-2020 1:22pm

I just watched Politics Live on bbc and it left me almost wanting to kick the screen in! They had telegraph columnist Madeline Grant on who seems to be on that show every week and is always consistently terrible. "Cases were already declining before the lockdown," she said at one point, discussing the health crisis. She actually uttered that sentence and it probably wasn't even the dumbest thing she said.

I think that highlights my big issue with bbc politics. Yes, it is essential to hear right wing voices and I want to listen to them but there seems to be a very small bubble that are repeatedly called on - Grant, Melanie Phillips, Farage, Claire Fox etc - and I just find them routinely terrible and uninspiring.

It's not that I just disagree with them, it's I find them disingenuous and generally incoherent and their bbc hosts often leave them go unchallenged. Whereas Danny Finkelstein, for example, is someone I rarely agree with but still respect for his sharpness and intelligence. But can't recall the last time I saw him on the bbc.

PommieBast · 29-09-2020 4:39pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I remember, living in uk back in the day, the bbc was overwhelming a cherished institution, an unquestioned source of national pride. That was a long time ago now, though.

For me the turning point was Hutton. The quality of BBC News journalism across the board nose-dived after that. ITV was also going through a bad patch with their failed digital venture so I just got rid of the TV and stopped paying the licence fee.

cml387 · 29-09-2020 8:25pm

Yes, it's back to the second Iraq war and the absolute schism that was created between the people and the politicians they elected. In Britain a basic distrust grew up as a result of that catastrophe that laid the groundwork for Brexit.

As for the BBC, nothing was the same afterwards. I believe that within the BBC hierarchy arose an entrenched view that henceforth it was to be solely a reporting organisation where "balance" would be the overriding watchword of BBC news.
Never in the history of the BBC were they laid as low as after Hutton, and whenever I hear Alastair Campbell speaking out about Brexit, there's always a gigantic virtual asterix there in my mind.

No matter how ludicrous the policy(at least as far as reporting British politics was concerned), the BBC would insist that both sides got an airing, and leave it up to the viewers to make up their own minds.

Question Time became the apotheosis of this idea of balance. Therefore extreme opinions were deliberately invited on to show that the BBC were not ignoring their views. And in the nature of things it's the loonies who create the most noise and get the greatest attention.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity".

Harry Palmr · 30-09-2020 9:06am

Just on BBC Three, its return is now very likely. It'll share its time with one of the children's channels from 7 pm.

L1011 · 30-09-2020 10:07am

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just on BBC Three, its return is now very likely. It'll share its time with one of the children's channels from 7 pm.

Which is exactly what it did before

BBC3 and BBC4 were both post-7pm occupants of the same channels as CBBC and CBeebies - I can't remember which way around nor is it important!

Harry Palmr · 04-10-2020 3:47pm

Charles Moore rules himself out of BBC Chairperson role.

dublinman1990 · 09-10-2020 2:30am

I don't know if this news was discussed on boards but there was a new British Government Press Secretary appointed earlier today.

If you watched her reports on ITV News in more recent times; this role has been given to Allegra Stratton who is a former ITV News National Editor.

https://twitter.com/BBCVickiYoung/status/1314207613580505091

Joe_ Public · 09-10-2020 6:01pm

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I don't know if this news was discussed on boards but there was a new British Government Press Secretary appointed earlier today.

If you watched her reports on ITV News in more recent times; this role has been given to Allegra Stratton who is a former ITV News National Editor.

https://twitter.com/BBCVickiYoung/status/1314207613580505091

The Allegra Stratton who decamped from the bbc not long after she was passed over as political editor in favour of Laura Kuennsberg. Think she's finally found her true calling, maybe she and Laura will be work colleagues again before too long!

breezy1985 · 29-10-2020 2:35pm

I thought it was Corbyn allies on the supposed far left that were into purges not the other way around

Harry Palmr · 29-10-2020 2:37pm

So then Corbyn suspended in aftermath of EHRC report into antisemitism.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1321800231399378944

Hopefully this will begin the clean out of Momentum cohort as they have a fit of indignation.

Nody · 29-10-2020 2:42pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

So then Corbyn suspended in aftermath of EHRC report into antisemitism.

Well to be specific suspended for claiming the reports were exaggerated and refusing to back down from that statement. Then again Corby and momentum never did feature introspective views; it is always someone's else fault things turned out the way they did.

VinLieger · 29-10-2020 2:44pm

Nody wrote: »

it is always someone's else fault things turned out the way they did.

Now I wonder what other political grouping suffers from the same issues..... its as if extremists on either side were just different sides of the same coin

weemcd · 29-10-2020 3:37pm

Quick thoughts:

While perhaps a cynical move, suspending Corbyn sets Starmer apart and draws a line in the sand after his time as leader. It also shows that the party will place sanctions on MP's which is completely opposite to the Tory laissez-faire climate of zero accountability. Interesting.

I've no idea how complicit/guilty Corbyn is of anything, BTW.

fiveleavesleft · 29-10-2020 4:10pm

weemcd wrote: »

Quick thoughts:

While perhaps a cynical move, suspending Corbyn sets Starmer apart and draws a line in the sand after his time as leader. It also shows that the party will place sanctions on MP's which is completely opposite to the Tory laissez-faire climate of zero accountability. Interesting.

I've no idea how complicit/guilty Corbyn is of anything, BTW.

The report shows Corbyn personally intervened to speed up Livingstone's suspension. It's all very grim to be honest:(

Rjd2 · 29-10-2020 4:13pm

weemcd wrote: »

Quick thoughts:

While perhaps a cynical move, suspending Corbyn sets Starmer apart and draws a line in the sand after his time as leader. It also shows that the party will place sanctions on MP's which is completely opposite to the Tory laissez-faire climate of zero accountability. Interesting.

I've no idea how complicit/guilty Corbyn is of anything, BTW.

Starmer really wants to win which is understandable as the last time Labour were in power Man Utd were premier league champions.

He knows the antisemitism allegations has hurt them over last few years especially in 2019 and he wants to terminate that as a line of attack from the tories.

It's a ballsy call , but maybe he is looking at Biden and figuring those who will truly be angered enough by this the left of the party will fall into line next time or simply don't have the numbers to make a difference.

breezy1985 · 29-10-2020 4:21pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

Starmer really wants to win which is understandable as the last time Labour were in power Man Utd were premier league champions.

He knows the antisemitism allegations has hurt them over last few years especially in 2019 and he wants to terminate that as a line of attack from the tories.

It's a ballsy call , but maybe he is looking at Biden and figuring those who will truly be angered enough by this the left of the party will fall into line next time or simply don't have the numbers to make a difference.

Starmer is more worried about picking up disgruntled Tory and Lib Dem voters than he is about promoting actual labour policy.

All the young people who Blair made the Labour party toxic for have now been lost again

Corbyn being an anti Semite is about as real as Corbyn being in the Ra. He might be anti Israeli foreign policy but it's not the same.

Rjd2 · 29-10-2020 4:25pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Starmer is more worried about picking up disgruntled Tory and Lib Dem voters than he is about promoting actual labour policy.

All the young people who Blair made the Labour party toxic for have now been lost again

Corbyn being an anti Semite is about as real as Corbyn being in the Ra. He might be anti Israeli foreign policy but it's not the same.

I'm not saying I agree with the strategy whatsoever or the suspension but it is what it is.

Biden is strolling to victory by courting disgruntled ex suburban Republican voters and offering the left scraps knowing the alternative is so awful so maybe it works for Keir.

He trying to spin it as though he had no role in the suspension is very poor though.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2020 4:29pm

I guess they have to spin it that they had no role in the suspension of Corbyn as according to the EHRC itself, the leadership should be independent of that process. In reality, it's political. We all know that. Big question now is what happens with those mps who have complaints of AS lodged against them. One of them is deputy leader Angela Rayner. How does the zero tolerance approach deals with that?

breezy1985 · 29-10-2020 4:30pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree with the strategy whatsoever or the suspension but it is what it is.

Biden is strolling to victory by courting disgruntled ex suburban Republican voters and offering the left scraps so maybe it works for Keir.

He trying to spin it as though he had no role in the suspension is very poor though.

But what good is a labour victory if its a victory for Tory light. Blair all over again is not what the UK needs.

At least Keir is left wing in one sense as we do have a habit of spending for time purging and fighting each other than the actual enemy.

I also await with bated breath the report on the "pikanini" and "watermelon smile" Prime Minister or the racist crown prince. Double standards as usual

The White Wolf · 29-10-2020 4:54pm

fiveleavesleft wrote: »

The report shows Corbyn personally intervened to speed up Livingstone's suspension. It's all very grim to be honest:(

Anyone have a link to want happened here as I'm curious.

The character assassination from within his own party has comes across as quite sinister and I'm not sure if I believe any of it. The knives were out for him within the party from very early on.

That being said I've felt for a long time Jeremy should have split the party when he had the chance.

Rjd2 · 29-10-2020 4:58pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

But what good is a labour victory if its a victory for Tory light. Blair all over again is not what the UK needs.

At least Keir is left wing in one sense as we do have a habit of spending for time purging and fighting each other than the actual enemy.

I also await with bated breath the report on the "pikanini" and "watermelon smile" Prime Minister or the racist crown prince. Double standards as usual

Tories have always been hypocritical regarding racism sadly .

On Labour as they have lost 4 elections in a row they obviously feel any sort of victory will do. I agree a return to Blairism is not what the UK needs but I don't think that Keir will go down that road. He's much more left wing then some of his detractors think.

Right now with populists in charge, their is clearly a sizable portion of middle of the road voters who are deciding elections as next week will prove, its quite possible that if Boris continues his current path of Brexit and culture war on steroids those voters are the ones who will get Keir over the line and at this moment this type of approach on the alleged antisemitism in the party.

breezy1985 · 29-10-2020 5:06pm

spook_cook wrote: »

Must be a pretty hard day for Corbyn lovers, but keep fighting the good fight. It's all just a smear! It's just the press, Labour members, the EHCR, jews and everyone else out to get St Jeremy. He never did any wrong! And sure even if he did, well he's the same as the Tories! Haha

Can you give me some of your reasons as to why he is an anti semite. Things he actually done?

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2020 5:08pm

The White Wolf wrote: »

Anyone have a link to want happened here as I'm curious.

The character assassination from within his own party has comes across as quite sinister and I'm not sure if I believe any of it. The knives were out for him within the party from very early on.

That being said I've felt for a long time Jeremy should have split the party when he had the chance.

The Livingston case is one of the main ones dealt with in the report. Basically, the leaders office made recommendations to have the disciplinary process against Livingston speeded up as it had already dragged on 2 years. The report is critical of this attempt by the leaders office to interfere in the process.

The White Wolf · 29-10-2020 5:19pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The Livingston case is one of the main ones dealt with in the report. Basically, the leaders office made recommendations to have the disciplinary process against Livingston speeded up as it had already dragged on 2 years. The report is critical of this attempt by the leaders office to interfere in the process.

What I would wonder is how the report can link this to anti-semitism.

Joe_ Public · 29-10-2020 5:29pm

The White Wolf wrote: »

What I would wonder is how the report can link this to anti-semitism.

I don't think such actions are antisemitic in themselves, just a failure of procedure and a breach of guidelines as set out in the 2010 Equalities Act. The question with Livingstone case is why it wasn't dealt with sooner and what went on with the partys disciplinary proceedings. I haven't read it fully though so not sure how fully they delve into such issues.

General British politics discussion thread

Comments