Nicktendo86
Member
Lol, never fails to meals me chuckle when I read things like this. Paul O'Grady said he would leave the country if the Tories win, he is still here as well.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
What's particularly anti-SNP or anti-Scotland about that report?
FlammableD
Banned
The argument is that a widely praised and reported on speech is entirely talked over as an incidental item, but they specifically highlight and give audio to the MP's being told off for clapping rather than the speech itself.
CyclopsRock
Member
Scouser though, innit? And as we all know...
Maybe he thinks he has left the country? He now lives in the Kingdom of Liverpool.
Yup, I wonder which despot country subscribes to his particular views to the letter?
'Torygraph'
One of my favourites too. I'd love to know to what utopia they're all going to flee to.
There's literally a protest outside the main BBC offices every two days. They're all ignored, because otherwise it would be an easy way to get your campaign on air.
Fuck, there was a surprisingly well attended protest outside Television Centre about the cancellation of Star Trek Enterprise, and they didn't even fucking air that show.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
That was the one reason I was hoping for a Tory win as well.
PJV3
Member
I hope Corbyn wins the election, Labour needs a John Smith period where they actually think about policy, the rest of the pack are so fucking shallow . Corbyn wouldn't win the general election but the next leader might have something decent to work with like Blair did.
Good to see Farron elected, i can probably vote tactically again, unless Ed Davey tries to slither back into the seat.
Good to see Farron elected, i can probably vote tactically again, unless Ed Davey tries to slither back into the seat.
dapperbandit
Banned
Corby seems to have a personality at least and he's visually and ideologically distinct from the new labour types.
I think ultimately he won't get it but he's an interesting candidate.
I think ultimately he won't get it but he's an interesting candidate.
oh ffs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...voids-saying-whether-he-sees-gay-sex-as-a-sin
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...voids-saying-whether-he-sees-gay-sex-as-a-sin
REALLY? THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY CAN'T EVEN BEST THE FUCKING CONSERVATIVES ON HUMAN RIGHTS? WHO THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR NOW?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I very nearly linked that earlier, but actually I think he answers the question pretty well.
Politically it leaves him quite vulnerable to cross-party attacks, mind.
Politically it leaves him quite vulnerable to cross-party attacks, mind.
Nicktendo86
Member
The socialist paradise of Venezuela perhaps. Best bring your own toilet paper/food with you though!
Fallon refused to answer where he thinks gay sex is a sin last night. Whatever happened to liberalism?
The US, hopefully. I'd rather live there than the UK. At least they've made improvements to social welfare over the past five years instead of tried their absolute hardest to tear down everything that makes their country great.
Yeah they just shoot their poor people instead
Nicktendo86
Member
You want to move to the U.S. as the UK is veering too right wing.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Enjoy your freedom.
It's not difficult to see where the wind is blowing. The UK has already slipped behind the US in terms of social mobility. Five more years of Tory rule and the damage will be irreversible for a generation.
Nicktendo86
Member
OK.
Anyone bother to watch the labour leader deabate on Sunday politics today? All four candidates are utterly, utterly awful.
Yeah, to be honest I don't really feel that the UK is much more progressive than the US anymore.
I can't see the Tories losing 2020. They've already gotten started on getting rid of the BBC, and I doubt a huge amount of the NHS will be left publically owned in ten years time.
I know one person who has moved abroad because of the election, and I'd definitely consider it if it wasn't such a hassle and I didn't enjoy my job a lot. My dream scenerio right now would probably be Scottish Independence followed by my company opening an office up there.
Nicktendo86
Member
Bloody hell, the Tories have been in government for about 60% of the NHS's existence and it is still here today. This '24 hours to save the NHS shit needs to stop. Do I also need to point out again that it was labour who started the process of private providers? Why us it OK for them but not for the Tories?
The full scale of the PFI calamilty labour left saddled on the NHS is also becoming clear.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11748960/The-PFI-hospitals-costing-NHS-2bn-every-year.html
As for the BBC, why is it untouchable? It's an early 20th century institution running in 2015, like everything else it needs to modernise. This screeching over the Tories is overblown beyond belief.
The full scale of the PFI calamilty labour left saddled on the NHS is also becoming clear.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11748960/The-PFI-hospitals-costing-NHS-2bn-every-year.html
As for the BBC, why is it untouchable? It's an early 20th century institution running in 2015, like everything else it needs to modernise. This screeching over the Tories is overblown beyond belief.
U wot m8?
Dude, you are on a roll, don't stop.
Yeah I'm sure Labour are pretty bad as well. It wasn't ok for them to do that. I did vote Labour at the election but I'm pretty doubtful I'll vote for them next time.
I'm all for the BBC modernising, but what the government wants isn't that, it wants them to be drastically smaller. In fact the part of the BBC they're attacking most is the most modern part of it, the online services.
Katherine Ryan: It's mandatory to love Taylor Swift
Take the test: What type of geek are you?
7 reasons why the hang drum is a hit around the world
This is not the type of modern content required from the BBC.
When they are one of the first to make a weather app and do it well, that's great. But there's no need for them to try and compete with other services like Buzzfeed or music streaming when they are late to the party and aren't the best at it.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'd be happy for the BBC to be a lot smaller.
What would you cut?
CyclopsRock
Member
The majority of it's TV output. I don't think it should be competing with commercial channels. I want it to do things other channels can't do because it's not financially viable for them to, like niche educational programming or whatever, rather than competing head on in markets that are already well provisioned.
I understand the argument that some shows should be for the commercial channels (not sure about The Voice, for instance, especially given the dodgy connections to Universal Music) but I'd be happy with the BBC providing commercial shows so long as the profits can be reinvested into the broadcaster. (It's better than it going into Murdoch's pockets.)
If nothing else the state of the print media shows we need a public service news broadcaster who at least pretends to be balanced, but that'd be the first thing to go if you're worried about competing with commercial interests.
No arguments, I see.
It's not okay for Labour to do it either? But the NHS is fundamentally conceptually opposed to almost all of the Tories' political and economic beliefs, and now for the first time since its creation, its destruction is within their reach. You're an idiot if you think they wont make every attempt they can.
The BBC's output shits on Sky, who just buy the rights to American shows (and when they don't, it's total trash, like their adaptation of Terry Pratchett's books). If the BBC cut the majority of its programming, the quality of television in this country would nosedive. Sky have shown absolutely no interest in creating programming of the calibre of Sherlock, Doctor Who, Luther, The Office, Him & Her, etc. etc., why believe they'd start if they had no competition from the BBC?
Absolutely agree. Can't believe Cyclops' post on that one. Hurrah for shittier television I guess? Side note, you missed out Top Gear as well, and stuff like The Graham Norton Show, Masterchef, Apprentice, Have I got News for You, Match of the Day, all their documentaries (Human Planet, Life etc). Hell, even Friday Night with Jonathan Ross turned to shit when it became The Jonathan Ross Show under ITV.
The BBC, along with the NHS, are two of the finer institutes this country has ever produced, even though they are not without their faults, as nothing ever is.
Really? I can.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well if they wanna become a production company and sell their wares to other channels, they should go right ahead, but obviously it won't net them any profit as long as it's just being shown on the BBC. OK, they can get a bit from DVD sales and for shows that are super popular worldwide like Top Gear and Doctor Who, the DVD and Syndication can be huge. But they're anomolies.
And yeah, I'm happy for them to be a public news broadcaster. I just don't understand why, in this day and age, we need to be funding entertainment via something that's effectively a tax. If people love the entertainment aspect so much more than every where else (and it's an easy argument to make that's true in some cases and not in others - for every The Office, C4 has a Peep Show, for example; The BBC certainly isn't the only broadcaster making original, decent content, but turning it into a 'which shows do I prefer' pissing contest isn't useful imo) then they could spin that bit off into a channel that has to compete with others and keep the actual public broadcasting (documentaries, news, whatever else) as a centrally funded channel. Best of both, IMO.
Eeesh, it's a fairly complicated discussion to have and it's not aided by the fact that it's so subjective. Him & Her, for example, I find absolutely crap. And it's not like the BBC don't buy programming (no channel in the world could produce enough content themselves to supply four channels, even if two of them are only on for 12 hours a day). The Mighty Boosh, for example, was produced independently and hocked to the BBC. Which is fine - that's the only way it'll work. And some people loved the Terry Pratchett adaptations.
The problem with comparing output, though, is that TV more than any other art-form with the exception of music, tends to be pretty auteur; To use the example of The Mighty Boosh, that comes very much from the minds of Noel Fielding and Julian Barratt. Likewise, Chris Morris very much made Brass Eye on Channel 4. These people - as evidenced by Chris Morris' existence - wouldn't cease to exist without the BBC. In fact, The Mighty Boosh existed long before it had anything to do with the BBC as a stage show. So I'm not sure I buy this idea that without the BBC, all these shows we love would never have existed. They may not have been the same, but all these smarty pants people writing great shows and characters wouldn't blip out of existence. They wouldn't cease to be. And the BBC acts a giant hoover, sucking up talent (and often putting it to good use) but it's silly to think that this void would go un-filled should it cease to perform this function. In the same way that you can't assume that the left would disappear if the Labour party shut down tomorrow, we also can't assume that a future without the BBC would simply be the same as the present, only without the BBC.
Which leads me to another point, which is that some of the BBC productions are so well funded that no one else even bothers. Nature documentaries are actually a perfect example (and even those get co-funded with big American broadcasters; Planet Earth was co-produced with Discovery, who put Sigourney Weaver on their version rather than Attenborough.) Why would Channel 4 even try and compete with that? They can't. And I'm happy for the BBC to keep doing that kinda thing, because no one else can afford to do it as well. In other words, it's not financially viable. The Voice? Not so much.
Yuh, this is me down to the ground.
QuicheFontaine
Member
If Pointless goes, I will unleash the fury of a thousand Hells.
CyclopsRock
Member
Which shows?
JonathanEx
Member
The radio side of things is particularly interesting to me, as uh, that's my line of work. But not for the BBC, for the commercial side of things.
So taking Radio 1 and Radio 2 - they seem to be singled out for bits that could be privatised as they're popular. There's a fair bit of jealousy for the budgets BBC Radio has from the commercial side, and each station has 10 to 15 million listeners. Or something like that. So the idea is that the BBC is hindering the commercial sector in terms of listeners with their big money.
But in the last few years as regulation was relaxed on the commercial sector - they didn't hugely pick up that freedom to invest in content. Each of those stations has their own strong arguments for public service - the news output (eg Newsbeat/Jeremy Vine) - social campaigns, breaking artists/music, actually caring about the things said too.
Then wider - the good of having popular things drives technology. iPlayer, hell, DAB Radio - some sectors of the commercial industry are only really now coming round to it - but without the BBC investing earlier, they might not be now.
The vague point from this ramble is that the popular stuff is hugely important too - and also you can't just assume if it's popular, the commercial side would bother with it or do it as well.
Oh and as someone who's job is doing loads of stuff for commercial stations they do a lot of great stuff, and have invested in other things and provide a great service in other ways, but I think they complement eachother.
In terms of TV output... well, there's a few shows I think are a bit dross and things/areas they should focus more or less on - but broadly speaking I don't have an issue with the quantity of output. I don't think charter renewal should hugely see their remit changed - but internally a bit of refocusing of how they deliver those things, take risks and make big audiences for things others don't more.
So taking Radio 1 and Radio 2 - they seem to be singled out for bits that could be privatised as they're popular. There's a fair bit of jealousy for the budgets BBC Radio has from the commercial side, and each station has 10 to 15 million listeners. Or something like that. So the idea is that the BBC is hindering the commercial sector in terms of listeners with their big money.
But in the last few years as regulation was relaxed on the commercial sector - they didn't hugely pick up that freedom to invest in content. Each of those stations has their own strong arguments for public service - the news output (eg Newsbeat/Jeremy Vine) - social campaigns, breaking artists/music, actually caring about the things said too.
Then wider - the good of having popular things drives technology. iPlayer, hell, DAB Radio - some sectors of the commercial industry are only really now coming round to it - but without the BBC investing earlier, they might not be now.
The vague point from this ramble is that the popular stuff is hugely important too - and also you can't just assume if it's popular, the commercial side would bother with it or do it as well.
Oh and as someone who's job is doing loads of stuff for commercial stations they do a lot of great stuff, and have invested in other things and provide a great service in other ways, but I think they complement eachother.
In terms of TV output... well, there's a few shows I think are a bit dross and things/areas they should focus more or less on - but broadly speaking I don't have an issue with the quantity of output. I don't think charter renewal should hugely see their remit changed - but internally a bit of refocusing of how they deliver those things, take risks and make big audiences for things others don't more.
This is the important part, though.
And because they work, because they show what we can achieve when we remove corporatism from the equation... They will always be targeted by the Tories for destruction. Be it by death from a thousand cuts if need be.
Nicktendo86
Member
So labour bottled the welfare vote today. Is Burnham for or against the measures? How are we supposed to vote for someone if they just abstain from the big issues?
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Laugh all you want at Corbyn, at least you know what the fuck he stands for
This is exactly why Tory Lite Labour is such a disaster. They stand for nothing.
StealthGoblin
Banned
I only watch BBC channels really. Can't remember the last time I watched ITV or Sky.
I'm a BBC and catch-up/Netflix man. I find the BBC's output to be more or less everything I need. Will be gutted if they hit the main shows.
Luther, Doctor Who, Horizon, Nature docs, Sherlock, Have I got News for You, Question Time, Top Gear, Masterchef, Spooks, Hustle, Panorama, The Apprentice, MOTD etc are regularly watched or were when they were on.
I think the License fee is fine.
I'm a BBC and catch-up/Netflix man. I find the BBC's output to be more or less everything I need. Will be gutted if they hit the main shows.
Luther, Doctor Who, Horizon, Nature docs, Sherlock, Have I got News for You, Question Time, Top Gear, Masterchef, Spooks, Hustle, Panorama, The Apprentice, MOTD etc are regularly watched or were when they were on.
I think the License fee is fine.
It's cowardice. What's the point in saying it's unsupportable if you sit on your hands and do nothing against it.
Quite. I normally vote Labour, I'll vote green next election, at least they have a spine.
CyclopsRock
Member
The last Labour PM to win a general election whose name wasn't "Tony Blair" was almost 40 years ago. Go with Liz - You know it makes sense!
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Anybody would have won in 1997.
CyclopsRock
Member
Easy to say that, but tbf that's what they said in 1992, as well. Even after all the Thatcher years, the electorate rejected Kinnock.
A wannabe Tory? No thanks.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yeah, you're right. Probably best leave the real Tories to, I dunno, privatise and rape everything. It's not like he ploughed loads of money into education and healthcare or anything.
Face it, chaps. Blair had it right. He knows people didn't want their government running their fucking telephones anymore. No one wants that. He thought "Hmmm, in an era where the government doesn't meddle in every aspect of people's lives, what's left for the left?" And he decided that the best bet was to utilise the productive efficiency of markets to capture tax and plough money into the things that were most important to people; the NHS, education and bombing brown people, in that order. Because people like the NHS and they like earning money. People still don't want the government to run their telephone contracts, and they get confused when the worst insult that a Labour party member can throw at their fellow members are that they're too much like the party that just won a fucking election, they scratch their heads and think "Man, why do these guys hate me so much?" Then they go away and vote Tory again because Labour doesn't represent them.
Or absolutely anyone.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked