Will the Tories do Murdoch's bidding and kill off the BBC?

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Please don't try and use that argument Maggy because it is not the same and your well aware of that. Taxes are paid because in oneway or another we all benefit by a far greater margin then we all benefit by all paying the licence fee. Times change and things move on but the bbc isn't at anywhere near the same pace and the reason is because they have a nice cocoon called the licence to always gaurantee their revenue.

The unique position the BBC is in is why it is a cultural force in the world. From Planet Earth to the BBC World Service the Beeb has been, and continues to be, one of the most successful exports we ever had.

We are a small island with a relatively small population but outside of the United States we probably one of the most successful content producers in the world. This is a fantastic achievement and I don't understand why we as a country as so quick and eager to dismiss that.

Look at the other channels in the UK, the BBC is by far and away the best channel for British writers, directors and actors to succeed. A lot of our most successful artists started there because, free from commercial considerations, the BBC is in a position to take more risks and produce content for everyone however niche their tastes. Far better than ITV and it's obsession with reality shows and badly scripted, clichéd police dramas. You might agree that commercial success is a indicator of quality or at least of 'what people want' but I don't agree. Planet Earth is far better in terms of culture and impact than X-Factor. Yet there is not a channel in the world that would invest in something like it. Planet Earth is an example of why the BBC matters. It can decide that creating something wonderful, important, and educating is more important than commercial success.

Alternatively we could reduce our TV culture to reality shows and American Imports.

[ArronC07]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Have you actually watched the BBC recently? 3 minute 20sec (ITV standard) commercial breaks between programs, even ads between the news and weather. Programs deliberatly shortened so that you can be bombarded with ads for the BBC rubbish channels that nobody watches. Eastenders and strictly come dancing is reason enough to scrap the BBC. Sitcoms that only bring you situation, no comedy. The technical quality has also gone down the pan.

The ONLY quality part is the natural history unit in Bristol the rest is wall to wall rubbish. The news is SO biased I can't watch it.

So you do watch the Natural History output?

I personally don't and I really hate that stuff, but I appreciate that there are people that do like it and do watch it and I don't mind some of MY money going towards it because the BBC does provide stuff I do like to watch.

ITV costs you more per year than the BBC because the cost of making those programmes is paid for by advertising, the cost of which is passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices to cover the cost of marketing.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

So you'd have no problem with the BBC being subscription only? (My preferred option) If the BBC is so wonderful it'll have no trouble raising the cash else it should wither on the vine

There simply isn't enough people to make a HBO style thing work.

[ArronC07]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I've seen some of the output when it comes to commercial channels, mostly I've seen the rubbish when I visit relatives. I prefer to watch the likes of Discovery or Nat Geo.

So you like that stuff you watch that is on commercial channels that is produced by the BBC?

Those commercial channels wouldn't buy that stuff unless they were able to sell advertising space and that means they'd only buy stuff that if it's proven to be in high demand within their key demographic. They play safe within their own defined part of the market but it takes the BBC to produce it first, show it to great acclaim for them to be interested in buying it.

The BBC leads and the rest follow and you must at least give them a little acknowledgement for that. Your licence fee funding is going toward
the production of programmes you like that others don't, it's now our fault you wait until a commercial broadcaster buys up the rights to the repeats.

So you'd have no problem with the BBC being subscription only? (My preferred option) If the BBC is so wonderful it'll have no trouble raising the cash else it should wither on the vine

Yes I do have a problem with the BBC being subscription only, as it is at the moment it HAS to cater for everybody because everybody contributes to it. Under a subscription model it'd be going for highest common denominator and it'd remove it's current tendency to take risks with programming that isn't considered to be "marketable".

The licence fee is the best way to ensure the BBC continues to take risks and continues to ensure everyone has something to watch.

[punky]

Originally Posted by ArronC07

bet you DO watch the BBC though.

I have never said I don't.

The BBC is something to be proud off

A poll tax is never something to be proud of.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by martyh

the way i see it is if the beeb doesn't get license fee money they will have to advertise like the other channels efectively meaning the end of the bbc ,and there's only so much advertising revenue to go round so i would say that the beebs revenue will fall through the floor and leave them no choice but to show repeats and trashy reality shows if they survive a tall

The BBC would almost certainly survive the transition to commercials. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 probably would not.

Why? Simple. When demand outstrips supply, prices go up. Demand for advertising space is pretty much fixed. However, the supply of advertising space has increased exponentially, thus driving prices (and therefore income for the commercial TV companies) down.

Think about it. A lot of people seem to consider the 80s and early 90s as the hey day for quality ITV drama. ITV, at the time, had an awful lot of money to spend on that quality drama. Mainly because there were only a few channels that had advertising, so the cost for each 30 second slot was astronomical. Now, we have over 300 channels, so the cost has gone through the floor. Adding the significant amount of advertising space that forcing the BBC to take advertising would would drive those prices even lower.

[punky]

Outstanding post Heero, will rep you when I can.

I use the word illegitimate deliberately. The BBC license fee has zero democratic legitmacy. Having tried to ask questions about this taxation as an elected MP, I've been barred from doing so. We're forced to pay it, but no one we elect is able to oversee how it is spent.

Reminds me of the succinct slogan "No taxation without representation".

[ArronC07]

Originally Posted by punky

I have never said I don't.



A poll tax is never something to be proud of.

It's not a poll tax, it's a licence to own a TV and it's goes towards funding the stuff you want to watch but I don't. I don't mind thouh because I appreciate that's what the BBC is there for and I bought a TV fully aware of that.

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...love-seat.html

The MP for Harwich said on Tuesday that the money had been well spent because his wife had recently given birth.

Mr Carswell, who has made his name as an anti-sleaze campaigner, made the claim after switching the designation of his second home to a property in his constituency, having claimed thousands of pounds for a London flat.


He initially designated the £1 million flat in south west London as his second home after being elected in 2005. He claimed more than £21,000 for a deposit, rent, food and furniture over 15 months.

The MP then began renting a £335,000 house in Thorpe Le Soken, Essex, in March 2007, and designated this as his second home. He again paid for the security deposit from his expenses.

He then used his allowances to pay for furniture, including the £655 "Maximus" love seat in deep moss brushed cotton, with extra fabric protection from sofa.com. Mr Carswell lives at the house with his wife, Clementine.

He said: "I bought the love seat and bed when moving into the home with my future wife. We have since got married and have had our first baby."

Since the couple moved in, Mr Carswell has claimed a total of £32,000 in expenses related to the house.

He also owns a property in Hertfordshire, which he rents out. Mrs Carswell sold her flat in south-west London for £500,000 last year.

The MP bills taxpayers for the entire rent of £1,250 per month and £2,280 annual council tax bills for the Essex house.

Since moving in, he has also claimed £1,605 for two sofas and £1,483 for a bed, mattress and chairs from ILVA.

He spent a further £700 for bedding and household extras at Peter Jones and The White Company.

Mr Carswell also claimed £453 for a fridge freezer, £400 for a washing machine, £99 for a garden strimmer and bin, and £377 for a radio, telephone, vacuum cleaner, iron and television.

In November 2007, he claimed £429 for four days' worth of gardening.

He also claimed for a range of items bought at Tesco, including a 74p washing line.

Mr Carswell rose to prominence in April last year when he became the first MP to publicly call for Mr Martin to resign over his decision to instigate a legal challenge to keep the details of MPs' expenses secret.

He criticised the Speaker for his handling of the row over MPs' expenses and for his failure to restore the integrity of Parliament. "Never has there been such bitter contempt for politicians or the standing of MPs been so low," he wrote at the time.

"We need to clean up Westminster politics and take action to restore faith in our political system." Mr Carswell, who worked as an adviser to David Cameron in the run-up to the 2005 election, last month tabled a no-confidence motion against Mr Martin.

Although the motion was not debated, it was widely credited with having helped prompt the Speaker's decision to resign later this month.

Last night Mr Carswell told The Daily Telegraph: "I have never used public money to pay a private mortgage. I have instead rented.

"It is true that I bought an armchair, sofa and some bedding, as well as a few other modest items of crockery and furniture. I believe this is entirely justified."

"Before making every claim, I have asked myself not only 'is it within the rules', but 'can I justify this to my local constituents'. In every instance I believe I can," he said.

SNAPSHOT
Douglas Carswell
Job: backbench Conservative MP for Harwich
Salary: £64,766
Total second home claims
2004-05: N/A
2005-06: £10,869
2006-07: £18,953
2007-08: £23,083

If Douglas Carswell was so concerned about the nation being ripped off maybe he should pay back that money he stole directly off the taxpayer without even contributing to our nations cultural wellbeing?

---------- Post added at 11:06 ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Oh contrau mon ami



Source

Even though ITV are cutting investment in programming commercial broadcasters still cost you more than the BBC. Advertising has to be paid for and has to cover the cost of making those shows and has to make a profit for the companies involved. Advertising costs form part of a marketing budget, marketing budgets are costed into the final cost of the products in the shops.

The BBC poll tax raises about £3.6 billion (Source) plus this

Oh yes, every right wing shrill propaganda extremists wet dream the Daily Mail bleats on about the BBC because the Daily Mail wants to charge you to view news on the internet and is so running a smear campaign against it's biggest rival.

The Daily Mail and General trust avoided paying its fair share if tax last year by exploiting legal loopholes in the taxation legislation in a similar fashion to TESCO and their owner Lord Rothermere is a non-dom registered in France and avoids paying a bucket load of tax.

Obviously if they were that concerned about the nations finances they fix that and if Cameron was that serious about making Britain fairer he'd announce a crack down on these schemes.

But then it's easier to attack the BBC and keep the support of ones friends isn't it?

And this from an MP:



Source

I've already addressed this. He should really do something about his expenses no? Surely he isn't trying to deflect attention away from his pilfering?

Bring it on!

Eat that!

I use the word illegitimate deliberately. The BBC license fee has zero democratic legitmacy. Having tried to ask questions about this taxation as an elected MP, I've been barred from doing so. We're forced to pay it, but no one we elect is able to oversee how it is spent.

The BBC is independent of government with good reason. It's a rather cheap shot because if MPs did have a say in how the BBC was governed the tact that would have been taken on here would be to question it's independence and compare it to governments which own TV stations and use it for self-promotion/censorship.

[ArronC07]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

If that TV was rigged to ONLY watch the BBC then I'd agree but its not thus it IS a poll tax.

It ISN'T a poll tax, you can still vote if you don't pay it.

So easy to shoot the messenger.

Just as it's easy to avoid the fact that you use BBC services and refuse to pay for them, that MP's have their own agenda's and that you're being manipulated by people with a commercial interest in seeing the BBC dismantled. Obviously it's also easier to be told what to think.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by ArronC07

It ISN'T a poll tax, you can still vote if you don't pay it.





Just as it's easy to avoid the fact that you use BBC services and refuse to pay for them, that MP's have their own agenda's and that you're being manipulated by people with a commercial interest in seeing the BBC dismantled. Obviously it's also easier to be told what to think.

Such as being told to think I'm selfish if I don't agree with your viewpoint you mean?

[Jimmy-J]

Would you pay a licence fee to the Sun newspaper in order to be able to read all the other newspapers?

Would you pay a licence fee for owning a toaster, with all fees going to Mr Warburton?

In the eyes of the BBC, people who don't have a TV are classed as liars and criminals. They will harass and bully the innocent.

Like some have already mentioned, the BBC should give the public a fair choice and go subscription only. But they won't do that, because they know they would go bust!

[ArronC07]

Originally Posted by Thomas T

Such as being told to think I'm selfish if I don't agree with your viewpoint you mean?

I'm engaging in a debate but when all I see are rehashed arguments originally peddled by the BBC's commercial rivals what am I to assume is happening?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Product 13

Like some have already mentioned, the BBC should give the public a fair choice and go subscription only. But they won't do that, because they know they would go bust!

Where's the fair choice in commercial TV? Every time I go to the shops I pay for the marketing spend that finances the dross put out by the commercial channels. Even if I don't own a tv...

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by ArronC07

I'm engaging in a debate but when all I see are rehashed arguments originally peddled by the BBC's commercial rivals what am I to assume is happening?

You assume what you want I don't really care. Assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is selfish just shows your ignorance. If you tried debating or discussing and actually finding out peoples opinions instead of assuming you already know them you may get further.

Still that's just my 2p and all.

I'm one of those people who doesn't mind paying the licence - but then I don't pay as much as most people so maybe that's why.