The days of state-run TV are over': Dorries clobbers the BBC with a £2bil cut .

[Good old]

Nice try. Problem is the health minister and the po faced Tw** John Griffiths who has featherbedded himself a cosy little nest as my "constituency" assembly member and done f**k all as it, since 1997, have both whinged that Westminster was not giving them the money to fund their largesse from day one

FROM DAY ONE

In 1999

When the Prime Minister not giving them the fruit of a magic money tree was Tony Blair, of a LABOUR Westminster government

You really do need to stop shooting yourself in the foot. I'm having serious health issues with the laughter you're causing me.

Tony Blair, took the 1998 mess left by the Tories and turned it round to a point where by its waiting lists were reduced to acceptable levels. Bed problems eased . All of this is well recorded, and easy to access. If you had someone down there wanting more , it does not reflect on the national situation  being as bad then as it was before or after Labour.  Even  before Covid, it was clear the Tories had managed to return the service back to 1998 levels. If they moan down there now it's justified. Because they have less in real terms to work with than they had back when Blair, was in the seat.
You can laugh mate, it makes me f—king cry.
Devolution has not given you full control over health, it merely charges you with handling a service with budget and other restraints coming from national policy.  Exactly as the SNP ,realise.

[papasmurf]

I would say that is already too late Pappy. You have the Right Wing GB News,

GB news seems to have a target audience for people with a mental age of about six years.

[johnofgwent]

The devolved governments can only work within the overall national budget for health care, that automatically means they are restricted by U.K. policy. And maybe this gives a clue as to how easily any control you appear to have can be swept aside.
Boris, seems to think a pound spent in Croydon, is better spent than a pound in Strathclyde, not much doubt who's money he thinks you spend up there in Scotland.

https://www.snp.org/tory-threat-to-nhs/

Nice try. Problem is the health minister and the po faced T@@@ John Griffiths who has featherbedded himself a cosy little nest as my "constituency" assembly member and done F@@@ all as it, since 1997, have both whinged that Westminster was not giving them the money to fund their largesse from day one 

FROM DAY ONE

In 1999

When the Prime Minister not giving them the fruit of a magic money tree was Tony Blair, of a LABOUR Westminster government 

You really do need to stop shooting yourself in the foot. I'm having serious health issues with the laughter you're causing me.

[Good old]

Other countries fund their public services  broadcasters using other methods.  Britain is an outlier in using a licence system.
What is to be avoided at all costs is ending like America, with lies and propaganda by biased "News" channels reflecting crackpot views of the owners.

This is so. So what do the government actually want here?  No public broadcaster? I doubt it very much, so that £160-00 Pa , will be gathered some how. But even if they did want no public broadcaster, because they see this one as biased. What a waste of time and money that would be. There is no such thing as unbiased, not biased. Every statement, or  thought carries a degree of bias  no matter who or what owns it.
If people think it preferable to pay £60-00 or more a month to be regaled by the interests ,biases of a republican Australian, Irish,  anti royal, media mogul, with little or no real regard for this country, then we are well on the way to the American, example. Every news outlet has a point of view behind it. It is ridiculous to expect the BBC to never show a bias. What seems to worry this government is that bias isn't always in their favour.

[B0ycey]

What is to be avoided at all costs is ending like America, with lies and propaganda by biased "News" channels reflecting crackpot views of the owners.

I would say that is already too late Pappy. You have the Right Wing GB News, the up and coming Murdoch UK News, the tampon waving Channel 4 news and that isn't even mentioning Al Jazeera and RT who like to throw in a populist news story in or two. Without the BBC hogging the media monopoly, what is left is populist news channels taking over. And like the tabloids in general, the narrative depends on who owns the station and not who sits in Downing Street. 

As I said, the government really should think more carefully what they are doing here. Because, you me and Joe Bloggs will look at the BBC and think, nah, F@@@ that give me my £160 instead. It was funny actually, Gary Lineker, you know the guy who gets paid a couple of million each year to host Match of the Day, posted online all the services the BBC offer and it was only the news that I seem to watch. But from a POV of national security the BBC is actually very very important. Can you imagine what a clusterfuck it would be if China won the bidding rights to broadcast the BBC. Massive . Massive massive . And all because Johnson liked a bit of Cheese and biscuits to go with his wine and didn't like it that Kuenssberg called him a naughty naughty boy.

[cromwell]

My trust in them is no greater than my trust in the BBC. I still listen to the beeb news at times in the expectation of a mostly establishmentarian mindset. But I also listen to AlJazeera and RT News for their different angles, well aware that though their biases will be very different, they will still be there. This is notably so with RT news which very much does broadcast the Russian side of things, which needs to be understood.

I also get my news from Novarra Media and online sources such as that, and for topical debate my preferred option is LBC radio. All of it's presenters have overt biases of course but they do tend to be drawn from all across the spectrum. There is for example a vast difference between James O'Brian and Nick Ferrari.

In a biased world there seems to be no such thing as genuine balance or neutrality. The best course of action is to recognise that and seek information from as wide a variety of different broadcasters and perspectives as possible.

As to the license fee, I have long opposed it as a finance model, because you are forced to pay it regardless of whether you want to watch the BBC or not, just for owning a TV. It is a de facto tax on TV ownership, and a poll tax in essence with eveyone paying the same regardless of wealth. And I for one resent having to finance a bias I disapprove of. And the intimidation involved for non-compliance, threatening letters, fines and jail is wholly unacceptable. If the BBC is to continue it needs to be financed either by a genuine payment for services model, ie you pay for what you watch, the more you watch the more you pay, or if it is to continue to be financed by a de facto tax, then as a tax it should more fairly reflect the ability to pay.

The BBC does produce some excellent dramas and documentaries, mostly lacking from the other channels. And it supplies a lot of good radio both at the national and local level. It would be a shame to lose this. Which is why I would prefer to see the continuation of some sort of state funding model, but one based upon a much fairer system. Perhaps a small ring fenced fraction of a percent on incomes, though I am sure there can be other alternatives. But you ought to be able to opt out of paying this if you choose not to access it at all. Perhaps all BBC tv and radio signals can be scrambled and only be unscrambled for those opting in? Would such a set up be possible? The problem with making the BBC a subscription service is that it would encourage dumbing down on a massive scale. The biggest audiences would go for things like Eastenders, with smaller audiences for intelligent dramas and documentaries, inevitably resulting in many of these latter ceasing to be made. And our nation would be intellectually and culturally poorer because of that. And how would all those local BBC radio stations be financed?

It should and probably will go to a tax,that this has all been rushed to cover for Boris's work piss ups is a disgrace.

There's so many beeb haters on here I don't expect anyone will agree.

[srb7677]

The Beeb has many faults but if you look at ITV,Murdoch and others we have even less redress from their shortcomings.

My trust in them is no greater than my trust in the BBC. I still listen to the beeb news at times in the expectation of a mostly establishmentarian mindset. But I also listen to AlJazeera and RT News for their different angles, well aware that though their biases will be very different, they will still be there. This is notably so with RT news which very much does broadcast the Russian side of things, which needs to be understood.

I also get my news from Novarra Media and online sources such as that, and for topical debate my preferred option is LBC radio. All of it's presenters have overt biases of course but they do tend to be drawn from all across the spectrum. There is for example a vast difference between James O'Brian and Nick Ferrari. 

In a biased world there seems to be no such thing as genuine balance or neutrality. The best course of action is to recognise that and seek information from as wide a variety of different broadcasters and perspectives as possible.

As to the license fee, I have long opposed it as a finance model, because you are forced to pay it regardless of whether you want to watch the BBC or not, just for owning a TV. It is a de facto tax on TV ownership, and a poll tax in essence with eveyone paying the same regardless of wealth. And I for one resent having to finance a bias I disapprove of. And the intimidation involved for non-compliance, threatening letters, fines and jail is wholly unacceptable. If the BBC is to continue it needs to be financed either by a genuine payment for services model, ie you pay for what you watch, the more you watch the more you pay, or if it is to continue to be financed by a de facto tax, then as a tax it should more fairly reflect the ability to pay.

The BBC does produce some excellent dramas and documentaries, mostly lacking from the other channels. And it supplies a lot of good radio both at the national and local level. It would be a shame to lose this. Which is why I would prefer to see the continuation of some sort of state funding model, but one based upon a much fairer system. Perhaps a small ring fenced fraction of a percent on incomes, though I am sure there can be other alternatives. But you ought to be able to opt out of paying this if you choose not to access it at all. Perhaps all BBC tv and radio signals can be scrambled and only be unscrambled for those opting in? Would such a set up be possible? The problem with making the BBC a subscription service is that it would encourage dumbing down on a massive scale. The biggest audiences would go for things like Eastenders, with smaller audiences for intelligent dramas and documentaries, inevitably resulting in many of these latter ceasing to be made. And our nation would be intellectually and culturally poorer because of that. And how would all those local BBC radio stations be financed?

[papasmurf]

I have always found the licence fee to basically be negative on partisan lines.

Other countries fund their public services  broadcasters using other methods.  Britain is an outlier in using a licence system.
What is to be avoided at all costs is ending like America, with lies and propaganda by biased "News" channels reflecting crackpot views of the owners.

[B0ycey]

I notice the labour mob are being generally silent about the bbc licence fee debate and funding "oor national treasure" . The tories are onto a winner here , while labour are silently hoping the public will keep putting up with forking out for a service less and less are using , while labour want to send in the tv licence guy to prosecute auld grannies for non payment.

I have always found the licence fee to basically be negative on partisan lines. The Right think there is a Left Wing bias and the Left think there is a Right Wing bias. But I suspect most people would rather just switch over to Sky News than pay £160 a year in any case.

As for the government, they need to think very carefully what they do here. The BBC is the British governments global propaganda mouthpiece. Can you imagine Putin getting rid of RT just because he had cheese and snacks in the garden? Naturally Joe Bloggs who is choosing heating over eating isn't going to give a shit about global pissing wars, but those freedom loving Tories might discover the channels to allow "Freedom fighters" to tell their story to the rest of the world has disappeared and left palm faced that no Arab springs are forthwith to sell arms to rebels anymore.

[Thomas]

I was wondering why even Laura Kuenssberg's articles have has a queanie edge to them lately.

I wish I had a TV set so that I could refuse to watch it, but I suppose I will just have to settle for stealing Auntie's programs via Pirate Bay and such

Thats the trouble they have borkie. The weans dont watch a telly , they consume videos and do their general viewing on phones and i pads etc. How they gonnae get a licence fee aff them in years ahead?

Most of them wont have a tv set in their houses.

I notice the labour mob are being generally silent about the bbc licence fee debate and funding "oor national treasure" . The tories are onto a winner here , while labour are silently hoping the public will keep putting up with forking out for a service less and less are using , while labour want to send in the tv licence guy to prosecute auld grannies for non payment.

I wonder what vacuous statement sir keir will come out with if quizzed on his "opinion"? Labours ten point plan to keep the licence fee.

[Thomas]

It is an odd thing about the left in that at bottom, they are the most appalling snobs

[Borchester]

So the establishment kicks it hard in the crutch. That's interesting. Maybe they think something less refined will do.

It is an odd thing about the left in that at bottom, they are the most appalling snobs

[Borchester]

The days of state-run TV are over': Nadine Dorries clobbers the BBC with a £2billion funding cut

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406491/Nadine-Dorries-hits-BBC-2bn-funding-cut-freezes-annual-licence-fee-charge-2024.html

I was wondering why even Laura Kuenssberg's articles have has a queanie edge to them lately.

I wish I had a TV set so that I could refuse to watch it, but I suppose I will just have to settle for stealing Auntie's programs via Pirate Bay and such

[Thomas]

So the establishment kicks it hard in the crutch. That's interesting. Maybe they think something less refined will do.

well if the bbc is as good as everyone says , im sure they will be queing up to subscribe to it.

Even lefty george monbiot  says he finds it hard to justify its continuation as it stands....

[Good old]

So the establishment kicks it hard in the crutch. That's interesting. Maybe they think something less refined will do.