Options
Do we need a second UK Parliament channel?
freetoview33
Posts: 2,921 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I think we need a second Parliament channel (BBC Parliament 2 for example)
My reasoning behind this is currently there is
Live House of Commons
and
Live House of Lords
Okay a second channel might only be broadcasting 13:00 - 19:00, but it would improve coverage.
I think there also needs to be a shake up of BBC Parliament currently so it offers more programmes for instance moving Question Time Extra to BBC Parliament.
My reasoning behind this is currently there is
Live House of Commons
and
Live House of Lords
Okay a second channel might only be broadcasting 13:00 - 19:00, but it would improve coverage.
I think there also needs to be a shake up of BBC Parliament currently so it offers more programmes for instance moving Question Time Extra to BBC Parliament.
0
Comments
I could be totally wrong of course! Ive not seen the viewing figures.
Also, it's more of a "Public service" commitment than a "Commercial" one
Couldn't they just have a "press red" option though and use one of the two interactive streams?
Although they need to find a way to involve/inform people of Politics and this is an easy way to do it.
the future of these specialist areas is that they all move to online streaming.
a net connected freeview box would mean that BBC Parliament could be dropped from the broadcast part of freeview
We could focus on what the MP's do in their second jobs and have a property show looking at their second homes.:D
I agree a brilliant idea but both channels should become SUBSCRPTION
What on earth is the logic behind that, Bob, seeing as it should surely be the right of everyone to watch their elected representatives at work? Not to mention of-course that BBC Parliament is such a cheap TV channel that the costs of collecting any subscription would probably be greater than the programme budget.
Its not much cheaper then any other channel all the same costs are there for any other channel. A bit cheaper perhaps but not a lot
It's way cheaper than other TV channels - costs only a few pence per year per licence fee.
It cannot be it has to pick up the same proportion of the overheads of all the other channels,it needs cameras & sound & lighting & staff. It will not be at BBC1 level but at a cost below that of BBC3/4.
Well I'm too lazy to look up figures (it's your influence - it's spreading!) but I believe from memory the cost is about £5 million a year - tiny in comparison with other channels. It's not hard to see why - very little expensive location work, no rights to pay for, most of those who appear do not demand a fee, etc, etc.
I think you're right. You point re: the viewing figures is very humble but i think it is safe to say that the ratings are not high enough to warrant a second channel. I would like to see licence fee money put into documentaries and panorama. I think Ross Kemp and Sky One put the BBC to shame.
There was a similar discussion here on DS some two years ago:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=17858424&postcount=47
The budget then was a mere £2.3million pa, compared to that of BBC3 of over £90million. Perhaps if you checked the figures before posting, rather than simply making things up, your claims might be taken a bit more seriously.
A lot more than what I had imagined it'd be
you sir, are a f!ckwit
i do believe that is an entirely appropriate response to what has been said