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

[danielf]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

It's the price of a bag of crisps each per day - OMG!

That's still £142.50 per year. Which is a fair amount of money to a lot of people.

I don't mind paying it, I just dislike people quoting a per day figure to make something sound cheap. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know how much of the price of that bag of crisps goes towards the marketing spend on commercial television.

[ArronC07]

It might be a little bit old but here goes:

• itv1 + GMTV 48.5p
• BBC ONE 35p
• Channel 4 18.7p
• Sat and cable 16.8p
• BBC TWO 12p
• five 7.7p
• BBC THREE 2.5p
• BBC FOUR 1.3p
• S4C 0.3p

That's per person per week, so ITV costs you more and that's funded by you regardless of if you own a TV or not.

http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/th...ramme/cost.php

[frogstamper]

Going back to the original question, apart from some on the far right of the Tory party I believe the majority of the party however begrudgingly, want the BBC to survive.
One point I'd like to mention is that the anti-BBC posters claim we can choose to watch these programs on other channels, well where are the likes of "Blue Planet" and "Cranford"? Channels like Sky just cannot afford to make such quality documentaries
and costume drama like the BBC does.
As mentioned earlier there are plenty of things we all pay for but some of us rather wouldn't, its precisely this principle that makes for a decent society.
Also at a guess I'd say that outside of the Labour and Tory leadership, there wouldn't be a long line of MP's willing to do Murdoch a favour, irrespective of which party they belong to...they are all well aware Murdoch's loyalty changes with the wind.

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Going back to the original question, apart from some on the far right of the Tory party I believe the majority of the party however begrudgingly, want the BBC to survive.
One point I'd like to mention is that the anti-BBC posters claim we can choose to watch these programs on other channels, well where are the likes of "Blue Planet" and "Cranford"? Channels like Sky just cannot afford to make such quality documentaries
and costume drama like the BBC does.
As mentioned earlier there are plenty of things we all pay for but some of us rather wouldn't, its precisely this principle that makes for a decent society.
Also at a guess I'd say that outside of the Labour and Tory leadership, there wouldn't be a long line of MP's willing to do Murdoch a favour, irrespective of which party they belong to...they are all well aware Murdoch's loyalty changes with the wind.

Shown by the swapping from supporting Labour in the last three elections when they supported the Tories before that and have now switched back to the Tories.

I personally would rather my news came from someone who wasn't so fickle and prone to cronyism when it suits their pocket.In fact I'd rather there were no media moguls trying to influence the politicians/politics and electorate of my country.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I think that that the government controls the BBC, and the most outrageous things is, that disgraceful licence fee that we have to pay.

If other TV channels advertise for revenue, then why can't the Beeb, They started up these digital channels, so therefore they should advertise on them, Over the years l have delivered many time to the 'old' studios, thenit developed into the major large one on the A40, and they have two across the road, if they cannot afford to run the digital channels, they should close these buildings down, and not expect the public to subsidise them, especially when they paid 100.00 pounds for those silly hippos to swim aroung to join a circle, any kid from a play school could have done that for a can of pop and a mars bar.

[Flyboy]

I think it cost more than a hundred pounds.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think that that the government controls the BBC, and the most outrageous things is, that disgraceful licence fee that we have to pay.

If other TV channels advertise for revenue, then why can't the Beeb, They started up these digital channels, so therefore they should advertise on them, Over the years l have delivered many time to the 'old' studios, thenit developed into the major large one on the A40, and they have two across the road, if they cannot afford to run the digital channels, they should close these buildings down, and not expect the public to subsidise them, especially when they paid 100.00 pounds for those silly hippos to swim aroung to join a circle, any kid from a play school could have done that for a can of pop and a mars bar.

go for it arthur

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I think it cost more than a hundred pounds.

That's our Arthur, never lets the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think that that the government controls the BBC, and the most outrageous things is, that disgraceful licence fee that we have to pay.

If other TV channels advertise for revenue, then why can't the Beeb, They started up these digital channels, so therefore they should advertise on them, Over the years l have delivered many time to the 'old' studios, thenit developed into the major large one on the A40, and they have two across the road, if they cannot afford to run the digital channels, they should close these buildings down, and not expect the public to subsidise them, especially when they paid 100.00 pounds for those silly hippos to swim aroung to join a circle, any kid from a play school could have done that for a can of pop and a mars bar.

Riiiiggghhhttt!

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think that that the government controls the BBC, and the most outrageous things is, that disgraceful licence fee that we have to pay.

If other TV channels advertise for revenue, then why can't the Beeb, They started up these digital channels, so therefore they should advertise on them, Over the years l have delivered many time to the 'old' studios, thenit developed into the major large one on the A40, and they have two across the road, if they cannot afford to run the digital channels, they should close these buildings down, and not expect the public to subsidise them, especially when they paid 100.00 pounds for those silly hippos to swim aroung to join a circle, any kid from a play school could have done that for a can of pop and a mars bar.

Good old Arthur - you must have had a good night.

I suspect Arfur can't find anything to watch yet again...

Yes, why can't the BBC produce programmes like 'Allo 'Allo, The Good Old Days, The Good Life, Fawlty Towers, Hancock's Half-Hour, Dad's Army, Are You Being Served?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Yes, why can't the BBC produce programmes like 'Allo 'Allo, The Good Old Days, The Good Life, Fawlty Towers, Hancock's Half-Hour, Dad's Army, Are You Being Served?

Don't forget those Shakesperian classics "Till death us do part" and "In Sickness and in Health".

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Don't forget those Shakesperian classics "Till death us do part" and "In Sickness and in Health".

Ah yes, but still more "cerebral" than ITV's "Love thy Neighbour".

[Escapee]

I'm not the typical TV viewer, I spent a few years without a television because quite frankly I found there is a lack of programmes that interest me on all terrestial channels including the BBC.

I have recently cancelled my sky subscription, I would always head for the discovery channels to watch documentaries about war, crime and ones of a civil or mechanical engineering content. (Note: I am certainly not a Top Gear fan)

After 12 months back as a TV viewer in my own house I became very bored with it, and the it's over a month since my sky has been switched off. I'm not missing it at all, but I guess for people who like such as Eastenders, Emmerdale, I'm a celebrity, Big Brother, X factor, ballroom dancing, cooking and all the other associated reality TV crap, I guess it's something they cannot do without.

I say if something is so good why are people worried about taking away the licence fee. If the BBC is truly that good people will pay a subscription to watch it. I believe the BBC would be scared of relying on a viewer subscription to justify their programming.