The Political Thread

[Steve Green]

You could ask yourself why should an internet shopping firm turn into a broadcaster?

The BBC and ITV have a huge back catalogue - wouldn't it make more sense for them to provide a service themselves rather than Amazon or Netflix taking a cut?

If the government is bent on eliminating the licence fee, then surely it would make sense to put something in place in the way of subscription to replace it.

Can't really moan if people are saying it's an archaic model, and then complain that they do something different.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

All the BBC programs are paid for by the licence fee, so if you hold a licence then your subscription should be free for the back catalogue but the rest of the world can pay for it. I'll settle for that

[Steve Green]

What about royalties/residuals?

[COMMANDO FORCES]

Good thinking there. Those will be paid for by the people who subscribe, as we still get it free with the licence. It'll have to be figured out by the money men.

[Frank]

If the government is bent on eliminating the licence fee, then surely it would make sense to put something in place in the way of subscription to replace it

Whatever value the BBC has resides in the fact it isn't subject to commercial pressures. It's not that anything the BBC does is particularly fantastic, but it's a useful yardstick to measure the privately owned competition against. The subscription model does away with that.

Whatever is wrong with the BBC resides in the fact it's subject to influence by the government of the day. Some future administration needs to put the corporation entirely beyond the reach of government and fold its funding into general taxation [1], like the NHS.

I don't think the deletion of an online recipe archive is a tragedy [2], but I don't think it makes any sense. The cost savings are counted in pennies; the only (fuzzy) logic behind it is that it will somehow allow other content providers to make more money and pay more tax.

That's clearly horseshit. The BBC belongs and is needed online more than anywhere else.



[1] I'd peg BBC funding to a percentage of pre-tax revenue generated by privately owned broadband, mobile and tv providers, which would do away with the argument that the BBC cannibalises their audience/revenue.

[2] Folding the mundane News Channel into World News is a great idea. I'd scrap them both and use the cash to give everyone in the UK basic broadband, since that's where they go when there's a breaking news story nowadays

[sheridan]

I don't think the deletion of an online recipe archive is a tragedy [2], but I don't think it makes any sense. The cost savings are counted in pennies; the only (fuzzy) logic behind it is that it will somehow allow other content providers to make more money and pay more tax.

That's clearly horseshit. The BBC belongs and is needed online more than anywhere else.

There was something in early reporting about how it needed to be differentiated from newspapers - though I wasn't aware that newspapers were well-known for providing a recipe database...

[The Legendary Shark]

Have you never heard of the Daily Jellygraph, the Daily Quail or the Daily Stir?

[TordelBack]

Have you never heard of the Daily Jellygraph, the Daily Quail or the Daily Stir?

Ahh, now I see how reintroducing slavery as a punishment could be justified...

[The Legendary Shark]

Gravery. Life, with no possibility of rissole.

[GordonR]

Good to see the Brexit debate has finally turned openly racist.

"Oh no!  Turkey might be an EU member in a few years, and if we're still in it, then all these brown-skinned people will move over here just to break into my house!"

[Professor Bear]

What would make me vote leave is stuff like TTIP, but for some reason the Brexit camp don't seem too keen on talking about the downside of trade deals that benefit the richest, victimise the poorest, and effectively destroy workers' rights and the power of unions.

[TordelBack]

"Oh no!  Turkey might be an EU member in a few years, and if we're still in it, then all these brown-skinned people will move over here just to break into my house!"

And don't forget all the raping.  Those poor brown folk do love their raping, and can't get enough of it in their own countries. Not like all those well respected white people at all.

One of my favourite 'leave' themes is 'I don't mind the EU now, but what's it going to be like in 50 years?'. Well who the feck knows. My guess would be 'still improving social conditions, but under horrific pressure from environmentally-driven migration and economic and political pressures resulting from same'.  Luckily the UK will be immune from such things. Somehow.

Still, I suppose that building that 500km fence along the NI/RoI border and staffing EU/UK customs and immigration will LPcreate some jobs.

[Jim_Campbell]

Still, I suppose that building that 500km fence along the NI/RoI border and staffing EU/UK customs and immigration will LPcreate some jobs.

Let's not forget the one they'd also have to build along the border with an independent Scotland that would almost certainly be part of the Schengen area.

Cheers

Jim

[Modern Panther]

BBC boldly running with the headline:

"UK 'unable to stop' Turkey joining EU"

...over a story that quite clearly explains that, yes, the UK could.

[Tjm86]

... but for some reason the Brexit camp don't seem too keen on talking about the downside of trade deals that benefit the richest, victimise the poorest, and effectively destroy workers' rights and the power of unions.

Mainly because a lot of those that are in the BREXIT camp are a) amongst those most likely to benefit from TTIP and b) most interested in victimising the poorest and effectively destroying workers rights?

TTIP is a bloody scary piece of legislation which for some reason the Tories want to keep quiet about.  Not sure why?  <thoughtful hmmmm>