John Bercow snubbed in New Years Honours Watch

ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#81
Report 3 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by nulli tertius)
(A) Wall to wall coverage of Party Conferences-1957 http://www.election.demon.co.uk/pt2.html
(B) Documentaries on BBC Radio Berkshire-1970 (as part of Radio Oxford) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_Oxford
(C) The Proms 1927 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pr...Sir_Henry_Wood
(D) The Sky at Night 1957 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_at_Night
(E) UK Short Course Swimming Championships 1938 European Swimming championships covered on TV from the Empire Pool Wembley
(F) The Daily Service 1928 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Service
(G) Carlisle United v Exeter City from an Exeter perspective 1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_Devon
(H) World News in Swahili 1957 http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sp...ng/page3.shtml
(I) Garden Rescue 2016 but practical gardening programmes started on the BBC in 1947 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden..._Question_Time


There would be an element of fuss (as there always is) over the loss of any longstanding existing programme but what you are failing to understand is the level of opposition to to a wholesale dislocation of cultural provision. There would have been nothing like it since the Beeching Report into the railways and that is still shaping argument about the railways more than 50 years later.
A. Yes there was coverage from 1957, but not by the BBC and not of all Party conferences and only whilst the schedule allowed so not wall to wall.

B. No mention of documentaries there.

C. Fair enough, knew that one has been on a very long time

D. See C.

E. Can't find any evidence of this but even if it was then it was a 1 off.

F. Same as C & D

G. Carlisle United did not play Exeter City in either the '82-'83 season or the '83-'84 one. If there was any coverage of Exeter City games on radio Devon then it would have been no more than occasional catch ups with a bloke on a pay phone.

H. As per C,D & F

I. You moved the goalposts.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#82
Report 3 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by DSilva)
Yet when BBC and ITV both show a football match, people overwhelmingly choose to watch it on the BBC! Series like Gavjn and Stacey, The Thick of It, Bake Off, Bodyguard, Doctor Who, Line of Duty, Fleabag, Sherlock, Top Gear, Peaky Blinders, Fawlty Towers, the Office, Extras, Yes Minister, etc have all been highly successful, to name a few. ITV just doesn't compete, as the ratings and viewing figures show.

Not only that but 426 million people from abroad use the BBC! Whu does the ITV have nothing like those figures?

I have addressed your point. I'm not saying each individual company will influence the BBC in a clear and obvious way, but as a collective they will push it in a very pro big business and corporate manner, as they have done with Sky and American stations.

It will mean charities, small enterprises, trade unions etc are cut out as big business dominates. Fair enough for a commercial statement, but not so for a state broadcaster.

You haven't addressed how something could be publicly owned while being funded privately. The very essence of public ownership is public funding. Once it is funded privately, in what sense does the public own it?

I really do think that people are looking for something to complain about. If the license cost thousands of pounds, I may agree. But it's around £150 per household per year that can be split between housemates and paid in instalment. It works out at £12.50 a month per household which wouldn't get you 3 pints in most places. If people genuinely can't afford it, then it should be subsidised and I would support it being funded through taxation.

But ultimately, the amount we all watch and use BBC services shows it is far more popular and of a much better quality than its critics make out. I think Politically the BBC has behaved appallingly recently with unashamed Pro Tory bias. But privatising it is not the answer.

Logically, and by definition you cannot have a privately funded yet publicly owned state broadcaster. It's a contradiction in terms.
I have to disagree with the idea that by allowing commercials the BBC would be pushed in a different way, there would be no reason for that to happen.
And yes the BBC have produced many great programmes, as has ITV and you would be surprised at just how many programmes it has a hand in producing all around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...by_ITV_Studios

I think this just boils down to a difference of opinion on how the BBC should and could be funded and how much influence we believe that outside commercial companies would have on the direction the BBC would go, and indeed the importance of that anyway.
Yourself, Burton and Nulli are not for changing on this subject and neither am I so it's probably best that we all agree to disagree on this matter because quite frankly I'm growing bored of the argument let alone everyone else reading this.
I respect all 3 of you and your viewpoints on the matter, but just see things a bit differently.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#83
Report 3 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by ColinDent)
I have to disagree with the idea that by allowing commercials the BBC would be pushed in a different way, there would be no reason for that to happen.
And yes the BBC have produced many great programmes, as has ITV and you would be surprised at just how many programmes it has a hand in producing all around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...by_ITV_Studios

I think this just boils down to a difference of opinion on how the BBC should and could be funded and how much influence we believe that outside commercial companies would have on the direction the BBC would go, and indeed the importance of that anyway.
Yourself, Burton and Nulli are not for changing on this subject and neither am I so it's probably best that we all agree to disagree on this matter because quite frankly I'm growing bored of the argument let alone everyone else reading this.
I respect all 3 of you and your viewpoints on the matter, but just see things a bit differently.
I guess we won't.

Nulli says it best. The BBC will either be a publicly funded state funded broadcaster, or a commercial enterprise. There is no in between possible or indeed practical.

It's a historic and highly regarded British institution across the world. The reason the Tories hate it is because it is a great example of a publicly owned institution that regularly outperforms its private sector competitors. It is a real life counter to the notion that publicly owned services are by nature inefficient or of low quality.

I'm interested to know practically or legally in how it can remain a publicly owned service if it is funded by private enterprise.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#84
Report 3 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by DSilva)
I guess we won't.

Nulli says it best. The BBC will either be a publicly funded state funded broadcaster, or a commercial enterprise. There is no in between possible or indeed practical.

It's a historic and highly regarded British institution across the world. The reason the Tories hate it is because it is a great example of a publicly owned institution that regularly outperforms its private sector competitors. It is a real life counter to the notion that publicly owned services are by nature inefficient or of low quality.

I'm interested to know practically or legally in how it can remain a publicly owned service if it is funded by private enterprise.
For me it would be down to strict guidelines and regulations being set and overseen by an independent body, even if that includes MP's in some sort of cross party thing to ensure balance.
Who knows maybe it would result in the BBC easing the tax burden.
It would literally be a case of advertisers buying advertisement slots, nothing more sinister than that.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#85
Report 3 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by ColinDent)
For me it would be down to strict guidelines and regulations being set and overseen by an independent body, even if that includes MP's in some sort of cross party thing to ensure balance.
Who knows maybe it would result in the BBC easing the tax burden.
It would literally be a case of advertisers buying advertisement slots, nothing more sinister than that.
In politics and business, nothing is ever that simple. It won't be publicly owned in that case. A core element of public ownership is public funding. If it's not publicly funded it's not publicly owned. It becomes a private institution, by definition. That's the crucial hole in your reasoning.

It will end up being very pro corporate.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#86
Report 3 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by ColinDent)
For me it would be down to strict guidelines and regulations being set and overseen by an independent body, even if that includes MP's in some sort of cross party thing to ensure balance.
Who knows maybe it would result in the BBC easing the tax burden.
It would literally be a case of advertisers buying advertisement slots, nothing more sinister than that.
Yeah because IPSA has reduced the tax burden of Parliament ><
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#87
Report 3 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by DSilva)
In politics and business, nothing is ever that simple. It won't be publicly owned in that case. A core element of public ownership is public funding. If it's not publicly funded it's not publicly owned. It becomes a private institution, by definition. That's the crucial hole in your reasoning.

It will end up being very pro corporate.
Again that's just a fundamental difference of opinion.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#88
Report 3 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by Quady)
Yeah because IPSA has reduced the tax burden of Parliament ><
It would also include some industry experts, not just parliamentarians.
0
reply
viffer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#89
Report 3 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by DSilva)
Yet when BBC and ITV both show a football match, people overwhelmingly choose to watch it on the BBC! Series like Gavjn and Stacey, The Thick of It, Bake Off, Bodyguard, Doctor Who, Line of Duty, Fleabag, Sherlock, Top Gear, Peaky Blinders, Fawlty Towers, the Office, Extras, Yes Minister, etc have all been highly successful, to name a few. ITV just doesn't compete, as the ratings and viewing figures show.

Not only that but 426 million people from abroad use the BBC! Whu does the ITV have nothing like those figures?

I have addressed your point. I'm not saying each individual company will influence the BBC in a clear and obvious way, but as a collective they will push it in a very pro big business and corporate manner, as they have done with Sky and American stations.

It will mean charities, small enterprises, trade unions etc are cut out as big business dominates. Fair enough for a commercial statement, but not so for a state broadcaster.

You haven't addressed how something could be publicly owned while being funded privately. The very essence of public ownership is public funding. Once it is funded privately, in what sense does the public own it?

I really do think that people are looking for something to complain about. If the license cost thousands of pounds, I may agree. But it's around £150 per household per year that can be split between housemates and paid in instalment. It works out at £12.50 a month per household which wouldn't get you 3 pints in most places. If people genuinely can't afford it, then it should be subsidised and I would support it being funded through taxation.

But ultimately, the amount we all watch and use BBC services shows it is far more popular and of a much better quality than its critics make out. I think Politically the BBC has behaved appallingly recently with unashamed Pro Tory bias. But privatising it is not the answer.

Logically, and by definition you cannot have a privately funded yet publicly owned state broadcaster. It's a contradiction in terms.
"I think Politically the BBC has behaved appallingly recently with unashamed Pro Tory bias"

Eh?
0
reply
viffer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#90
Report 3 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by Wired_1800)
It is not good to break with precedent in such a manner.
It was equally not good that the Speaker should have broken with tradition around being impartial.
0
reply
viffer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#91
Report 3 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by adam271)
In regards to John bercow. The main argument seems to be he has to have a peerage because it's traditional.... What a moronic justification.
Nail. Head. Hit.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#92
Report 3 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by adam271)
Most newly elected MPs have no former experience and are just thrown in.
Also look at Donald Trump.

Regardless the house of lords needs reforming. Being a party donor or a former MP seems like the main requirement to be in the house of lords at the moment which is stupid.

In regards to John bercow. The main argument seems to be he has to have a peerage because it's traditional.... What a moronic justification.
Well that's your opinion, to be honest I'd rip the entire unelected house and privileges to bits given the opportunity, however the system is the system and that's what we have to work on.

Let's be honest, that will be the only justification because it's the only thing a pro bercow person could say. Nobody could say he actually deserves it or he has been a great objective and netural speaker, the only thing they have is tradition.

You do all realise you are all getting eat up about nothing, bercow is going to get his peerage it's just a matter of time.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#93
Report 3 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Well that's your opinion, to be honest I'd rip the entire unelected house and privileges to bits given the opportunity, however the system is the system and that's what we have to work on.

Let's be honest, that will be the only justification because it's the only thing a pro bercow person could say. Nobody could say he actually deserves it or he has been a great objective and netural speaker, the only thing they have is tradition.

You do all realise you are all getting eat up about nothing, bercow is going to get his peerage it's just a matter of time.
I honestly don't care. To paraphrase Peter Hitchens the country has irreversibly fudged itself and there is nothing to be done about it, it's too late.

The main issue is that if you are an anti establishment politician it is very difficult to make it into Westminster by design.
For example Jeremy Corbyn constant smearing and lies.
Nigel Farage the same on the opposite end.
Even the lib Dems when they tried to a push for proportional representation got shut down quickly despite many MPs across the benches agreeing that it is a better system.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#94
Report 3 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by viffer)
"I think Politically the BBC has behaved appallingly recently with unashamed Pro Tory bias"

Eh?
They were unashamedly pro tory during the election period.
0
reply
rahul patil
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#95
Report 3 weeks ago
#95
how to extended uk visa after complete study
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#96
Report 3 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by viffer)
It was equally not good that the Speaker should have broken with tradition around being impartial.
True. He was clearly biased. It annoyed me that he tried to defend his partiality.
0
reply
viffer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#97
Report 3 weeks ago
#97
(Original post by DSilva)
They were unashamedly pro tory during the election period.
Show us your workings
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#98
Report 3 weeks ago
#98
(Original post by DSilva)
They were unashamedly pro tory during the election period.
I agree, particularly in allowing Mr Johnson to get away with little scrutiny, especially in regards to his attitude towards women. Then the Tories threatened to reduce BBC funding by stealth after Andrew Neil pleaded for Mr Johnson to do an interview with him (or was it because Mr Johnson seemed to be drooling over Laura Kuenssberg but knows he has to behave now he is PM?)
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#99
Report 3 weeks ago
#99
(Original post by ColinDent)
I have to disagree with the idea that by allowing commercials the BBC would be pushed in a different way, there would be no reason for that to happen.
And yes the BBC have produced many great programmes, as has ITV and you would be surprised at just how many programmes it has a hand in producing all around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...by_ITV_Studios

I think this just boils down to a difference of opinion on how the BBC should and could be funded and how much influence we believe that outside commercial companies would have on the direction the BBC would go, and indeed the importance of that anyway.
Yourself, Burton and Nulli are not for changing on this subject and neither am I so it's probably best that we all agree to disagree on this matter because quite frankly I'm growing bored of the argument let alone everyone else reading this.
I respect all 3 of you and your viewpoints on the matter, but just see things a bit differently.
I don’t have any great commitment to the current structure of the BBC or even to the continuance of the BBC as a single institution but I have no truck with those who would destroy a vast cultural edifice because they don’t like a tiny bit of what it does. Essentially who has no positive answer to the question of how the things I described would still be provided disqualifies themselves from participation in a discussion on the future of the BBC.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#100
Report 3 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by viffer)
Show us your workings
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I don’t have any great commitment to the current structure of the BBC or even to the continuance of the BBC as a single institution but I have no truck with those who would destroy a vast cultural edifice because they don’t like a tiny bit of what it does. Essentially who has no positive answer to the question of how the things I described would still be provided disqualifies themselves from participation in a discussion on the future of the BBC.
Laura Kuenssberg practically cheerleading for the Tories. The BBC having Corbyn inteverviewed by Neil before securing an interview with Johnson. The BBC then saying Johnson couldn't go onto Marr, only to backtrack and allow him on.

And their conduct in general. The BBC are and have been very pro tory for a long time. They know the government are their masters and they refuse to do anything that would paint them in a bad light.
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