John Bercow snubbed in New Years Honours Watch

DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by ColinDent)
So you're happy with the idea of people getting a criminal record for not paying for something they neither use or want?
I don't dispute that an impartial national broadcasting company is a good thing for many people, but in the modern society that can easily be funded by advertising.
The whole corporation could also be scaled down too.
You could make the same arguments about taxation. If a person doesn't use or want the NHS should they be able to just avoid paying taxes?

If they don't use or watch live tv, they won't have to pay for it. I do agree though that it should be a civil rather than a criminal matter.

Adverts would be dreadful. The lack of them is the best thing about the BBC.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by DSilva)
Tory remainer does seem to be the poltical position of the BBC, and has been for some time.

It's basically Cameronite.
Id say modernite mate, Blair,brown,Cameron they are all cheeks of the same backside. Even johnson is a moderate as I said in the election, the only thing is the Brexit thing but bar that, he is chasing the unicorn Blair sold us, hell even kinnock was but he never got the chance.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by DSilva)
You could make the same arguments about taxation. If a person doesn't use or want the NHS should they be able to just avoid paying taxes?

If they don't use or watch live tv, they won't have to pay for it. I do agree though that it should be a civil rather than a criminal matter.

Adverts would be dreadful. The lack of them is the best thing about the BBC.
The NHS is a totally different argument, that is quite literally a life and death organisation, the BBC is not.
Would adverts really be that bad? You already have adverts for shows in between other shows and on the digital platform you have to watch some people dancing or swimming on a loop when the local news is on.
Also EastEnders is just boring, miserable drivel so that could be replaced by adverts and it would actually be an improvement, I'm being slightly facetious on that last one obviously but that is an example of a program that's been used to push a political agenda in the past.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...d-drama-brexit
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Id say modernite mate, Blair,brown,Cameron they are all cheeks of the same backside. Even johnson is a moderate as I said in the election, the only thing is the Brexit thing but bar that, he is chasing the unicorn Blair sold us, hell even kinnock was but he never got the chance.
Yup. They promise Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation. It's not possible.

Ultimately if you want better public services you have to accept our tax burden will be higher.
1
reply
SCIENCE :D
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 weeks ago
#45
good.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by ColinDent)
So you're happy with the idea of people getting a criminal record for not paying for something they neither use or want?
I don't dispute that an impartial national broadcasting company is a good thing for many people, but in the modern society that can easily be funded by advertising.
The whole corporation could also be scaled down too.
Ok, I'm going to interject here DSilva with my 2p worth. I can understand colins point of view and in my head I agree with him, only because of the way the BBC (Baist Broadcasting Corp, Boris Bashing Coup, British Brainwashing Corporation and many other names its been called) is not ran as it was Intended to be ran. The idea of the BBC was a nationalised public service to report news free of business and poltical influence and therefore be the envy of the world.

I'm way more left wing than colin is and obviously I'm very pro nationalisation, I believe in press regulation as a democratic socialist so obviously I'm going to be supportive of nationalised services, but interesting this has came up on the Bercow thread, because like Bercow the BBC has misbehaved, it has taken its audience for granted. Ok it's not as bad as John bercow but you see the link. However I dont think the answer is to scrap the BBC and privatise it so it falls under the control of another billionaire, so they can use their money to shape public opinion. This is where I agree with DSilva, I think the BBC needs reform. Boot the Tory remainer and identity poltical biast and start making great programs again and when it comes to the news, report the news and allow the public to make their own mind up.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by DSilva)
Yup. They promise Scandinavian level public services on American levels of taxation. It's not possible.

Ultimately if you want better public services you have to accept our tax burden will be higher.
Absolutely, spot on.

There are only two options, go for a low taxation, low public service, small state and allow the wealthy to look after the poor or you go for a high taxation, high public service, large state and regulations insure all in society have a reasonable life.

We have been sold a dud fire work that's blowing our economy up. Thatcherite policy was a disaster and sent the economy pop, after selling off the family gold to stay afloat. The country didn't like it and opted to chase unicorns send the national debt through the roof, because it cut taxes and continued to look after the poor, so the rich can say "oh we cant afford this, pension lark" We need to make tough decisions (that only effect those beneath them in social class) to balance the books.

You have two options the middle ground dont exist.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Ok, I'm going to interject here DSilva with my 2p worth. I can understand colins point of view and in my head I agree with him, only because of the way the BBC (Baist Broadcasting Corp, Boris Bashing Coup, British Brainwashing Corporation and many other names its been called) is not ran as it was Intended to be ran. The idea of the BBC was a nationalised public service to report news free of business and poltical influence and therefore be the envy of the world.

I'm way more left wing than colin is and obviously I'm very pro nationalisation, I believe in press regulation as a democratic socialist so obviously I'm going to be supportive of nationalised services, but interesting this has came up on the Bercow thread, because like Bercow the BBC has misbehaved, it has taken its audience for granted. Ok it's not as bad as John bercow but you see the link. However I dont think the answer is to scrap the BBC and privatise it so it falls under the control of another billionaire, so they can use their money to shape public opinion. This is where I agree with DSilva, I think the BBC needs reform. Boot the Tory remainer and identity poltical biast and start making great programs again and when it comes to the news, report the news and allow the public to make their own mind up.
I'm not suggesting either scrapping or privatising it, merely suggesting that it should be funded by advertising instead of forcing every household to pay for a service that they may not use or get value for money from.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by ColinDent)
I'm not suggesting either scrapping or privatising it, merely suggesting that it should be funded by advertising instead of forcing every household to pay for a service that they may not use or get value for money from.
Funding it through advertising would essentially amount to a privatisation of sorts. It also leads to the position where we are dependant on big companies to keep the service afloat and its unlikely that such companies will not seek to garner favourable coverage and influence the general direction/political slant of the BBC.

For example, would Amazon be willing to fund the BBC if the BBC was going to use that money to report on conditions in Amazon factories etc?

Perhaps it should just be funded via taxation.
Last edited by DSilva; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by ColinDent)
Do you agree with the license fee?
And do you feel that it should be a criminal offence to not pay for a service which you are forced to do so whether you use it or not?
The BBC should just show some adverts like everyone else.
I agree with the basic premise but don't agree on it solely being levied on tv, given that there is BBC radio, and the internet. I want a broadcaster without adverts and someone who is not politically aligned unlike most of the media.

I think that it should remain a criminal offence until a satisfactory means of ensuring people do not evade payment remains.

None of this is relevant to John Bercow not getting a peerage.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by DSilva)
Funding it through advertising would essentially amount to a privatisation of sorts. It also leads to the position where we are dependant on big companies to keep the service afloat and its unlikely that such companies will not seek to garner favourable coverage and influence the general direction/political slant of the BBC.

Perhaps it should just be funded via taxation.
I would argue that the least political of the main channels is ITV, it's certainly less so than the BBC or CH4 and is funded through advertising.
If there is a strong enough board in charge of the BBC and the rules on such matters are set out and adhered to from day 1 then why would those advertisers have any influence on the running of the BBC.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by barnetlad)
I agree with the basic premise but don't agree on it solely being levied on tv, given that there is BBC radio, and the internet. I want a broadcaster without adverts and someone who is not politically aligned unlike most of the media.

I think that it should remain a criminal offence until a satisfactory means of ensuring people do not evade payment remains.

None of this is relevant to John Bercow not getting a peerage.
You brought the subject up.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by ColinDent)
I'm not suggesting either scrapping or privatising it, merely suggesting that it should be funded by advertising instead of forcing every household to pay for a service that they may not use or get value for money from.
But as soon as you open it to the private market you, open it to corruption.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by ColinDent)
I would argue that the least political of the main channels is ITV, it's certainly less so than the BBC or CH4 and is funded through advertising.
If there is a strong enough board in charge of the BBC and the rules on such matters are set out and adhered to from day 1 then why would those advertisers have any influence on the running of the BBC.
Because business have an agenda, to make money. So lets take top gear for example. If Kia sign a multimillion pound deal with BBC to sponsor BBC news. Do you think top gear would be as honest when reviewing their latest car and should they be, are kia bosses still going to support BBC news?

That's a small example as removed from the political labour/tory as I can possibly think of.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Because business have an agenda, to make money. So lets take top gear for example. If Kia sign a multimillion pound deal with BBC to sponsor BBC news. Do you think top gear would be as honest when reviewing their latest car and should they be, are kia bosses still going to support BBC news?

That's a small example as removed from the political labour/tory as I can possibly think of.
I do think that they would be honest yes.
By the way whilst we're talking about top gear there was a cash cow that the BBC ****ed up because of their pc leanings, yes I know Mr Clarkson shouldn't have punched the guy but the BBC had been looking for an excuse for years.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Bercow could have done more but was responsible for the toxicity in Parliament. He refused to be a neutral referee and clearly went against that position.
Neutral to whom... ><
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Quady)
Neutral to whom... ><
Neutral in the proceedings and not to be seen as favouring one side of an argument whether in principle or fact.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Neutral in the proceedings and not to be seen as favouring one side of an argument whether in principle or fact.
Ah.

By allowing the HMG to bring those motions knowing they would lose the votes?
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by Quady)
Ah.

By allowing the HMG to bring those motions knowing they would lose the votes?
No by being inconsistent with traditional he wants to preserve and "modernise" to the only consistency one could draw us the consistent supporting one side of the argument over the other. Also he silenced many parliamentarians, example, the same hard core remainers were called every debate. You of bren forgiven to believe there was only 20 MPs in parliament!

The speaker should be impartial are you seriously suggesting Bercow was impartial and acted honestly and properly.
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by Quady)
Ah.

By allowing the HMG to bring those motions knowing they would lose the votes?
Yes. They have to remain neutral.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (4)
33.33%
My career doesn't need one (1)
8.33%
I'm sick of studying (3)
25%
I can't find a course I want to do (0)
0%
I don't know enough about them (0)
0%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (4)
33.33%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise