Alternative Queen's speech - privatise the BBC

mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
Forum Member
Thought this was quite interesting - particularly given the attempted gagging of Greek state media at the moment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10133076/Conservative-MPs-launch-attempt-to-bring-back-death-penalty-privatise-the-BBC-and-ban-burka.html
«1

Comments

  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    Thought this was quite interesting - particularly given the attempted gagging of Greek state media at the moment.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10133076/Conservative-MPs-launch-attempt-to-bring-back-death-penalty-privatise-the-BBC-and-ban-burka.html

    I notice they said "privatise" and not "scrap", and also clear they'd keep the TV licence.

    How would people feel if the TV licence money went to a commercial company that gave profits to shareholders? :eek:
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    zz9 wrote: »
    I notice they said "privatise" and not "scrap", and also clear they'd keep the TV licence.

    How would people feel if the TV licence money went to a commercial company that gave profits to shareholders? :eek:

    A good point.
  • DomestiquesDomestiques Posts: 1,720
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cue the anti bbc people on DS's heads exploding. Can Not Compute!!!!
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The risk here for ITV, Sky, C4 and even companies like the Daily Mail (major shareholder in ITN) is that any privatisation of the BBC could lead to them taking advertising, and that is the very last thing they, particularly ITV and ITN, want.

    There's a finite amount of advertising money around and the BBC taking a huge chunk of it would be a disaster for ITV and the others.

    Meanwhile a privatised BBC would be free of all the FOI requests, all the expenses being published, all the scrutiny of MPs and meddling of the DCMS.

    The Daily Mail should be very careful what it asks for...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    How long would it take shareholders to bin off the World Service, can Cbeebies (do companies really want to advertise to babies?), scrap Parliament, axe BBC Four, and probably reduce BBC Two's line up to nothing but "scripted reality"? I'm guessing within 5 years they'd all have happened...

    Can't help but feeling commercialisation might have the exact opposite effect to what is intended...
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    How long would it take shareholders to bin off the World Service, can Cbeebies (do companies really want to advertise to babies?), scrap Parliament, axe BBC Four, and probably reduce BBC Two's line up to nothing but "scripted reality"? I'm guessing within 5 years they'd all have happened...

    Can't help but feeling commercialisation might have the exact opposite effect to what is intended...

    You'd be right of course. But the government would rather that i think. A dumb, unquestioning populace is every government's dream.
  • yorksdaveyorksdave Posts: 3,228
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    These private members bills have little chance of becoming law. Whilst Sky and possibly to a lesser extent itv and Channel Five might relish the prospect of a weakened BBC, starved of funding, they would not want a BBC competing for advertising revenue. Channel Four is a publicly owned broadcaster that is funded through advertising and in recent times seems to be struggling financially, and is a much better prospect for privatisation. In my opinion it is likely to be sold off if the conservative party were to win the next general election.
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How long would it take shareholders to bin off the World Service, can Cbeebies (do companies really want to advertise to babies?), scrap Parliament, axe BBC Four, and probably reduce BBC Two's line up to nothing but "scripted reality"? I'm guessing within 5 years they'd all have happened...

    Can't help but feeling commercialisation might have the exact opposite effect to what is intended...
    That's probably what they do want, the abolition of public service broadcasting. I know that'll be what Murdoch wants. That would then set a precedence for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to remove its PSB requirements.

    I don't think the Daily Mail or Murdoch want privatisation of the BBC, the latter would prefer their channels behind a paywall he controls and both would desire the abolition of it and PSB.

    Expect fierce opposition from the European Broadcasting Union from any of those proposals and if you abolish the BBC, expect mass protests, political instability and potential snap elections.
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yorksdave wrote: »
    These private members bills have little chance of becoming law.
    The fact that this bill has also been implemented alongside one calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty, something which would violate UN protocols and threaten our exit of both the EU and Council of Europe, probably suggests how little chance these bills have of becoming law and how out of touch the ideas of these four MPs are - hopefully the whip will be withdrawn from all of them and they'll join UKIP where they belong.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 175
    Forum Member
    zz9 wrote: »
    I notice they said "privatise" and not "scrap", and also clear they'd keep the TV licence.

    How would people feel if the TV licence money went to a commercial company that gave profits to shareholders? :eek:

    did you read the article?

    "One of the proposed Bill’s would privatise the BBC, with all license-fee payers awarded shares in the corporation" so if those paying the tvl fee were shareholders then any profit made would reduce the fee in the future.... directly to those paying it.... and then we'd have an ligitimate "share" of the BBC - i can only assume with voting rights.....and the other benefits of being a shareholder..?
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DPMOO wrote: »
    did you read the article?

    "One of the proposed Bill’s would privatise the BBC, with all license-fee payers awarded shares in the corporation" so if those paying the tvl fee were shareholders then any profit made would reduce the fee in the future.... directly to those paying it.... and then we'd have an ligitimate "share" of the BBC - i can only assume with voting rights.....and the other benefits of being a shareholder..?

    They said licence fee payers being awarded shares. That doesn't mean the entire company being owned by all the licence fee payers. In all privatisations to date with stakeholders getting shares, BT British Gas etc millions have ended up selling their shares either for a quick profit or after a few years and the majority of shares quickly ends up being owned by the big pension funds, institutions etc.

    When British Gas announce huge profits now no one says "Well that's all right! It's owned by the customers!"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    DPMOO wrote: »
    did you read the article?

    "One of the proposed Bill’s would privatise the BBC, with all license-fee payers awarded shares in the corporation" so if those paying the tvl fee were shareholders then any profit made would reduce the fee in the future.... directly to those paying it.... and then we'd have an ligitimate "share" of the BBC - i can only assume with voting rights.....and the other benefits of being a shareholder..?
    Yes, as I said above, how long until the BBC just becomes a profit making exercise for those that own the most shares? (Presumably, those that contribute more will get larger shares). Making it no different from any other broadcaster.

    I gave my list of predictions as to what will happen to the BBC should this go ahead earlier in the thread
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Privatise the BBC = Scrap the BBC.

    It's the same thing really. The 3 letters "BBC" would remain of course but what makes the BBC the BBC is the absence of private firms running it.

    Same as with the NHS, a "private NHS" is a contradiction in terms.


    In fact keeping the licence fee and letting a private firm run the BBC would be the worst of all possible set-ups.A private firm with guaranteed public money is lazy and 3rd-rate.
  • chrisjrchrisjr Posts: 33,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    In fact keeping the licence fee and letting a private firm run the BBC would be the worst of all possible set-ups.A private firm with guaranteed public money is lazy and 3rd-rate.
    I would agree with it being way less than an optimum solution. But who says keeping the licence fee means all the money goes to the privatised BBC? I can't see the government having too many qualms about trousering 3 billion quid a year and maybe spending a token amount on broadcast related issues.

    After all how many more billions do they take off motorists each year compared to the amount they spend on the roads?
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is little chance of letting a private firm run the BBC and the licence fee remaining.

    It's too much like enforced subscription.

    Other taxes are not directly linked to the provision of the service the way the TV Licence is.


    Anyway, these Conservatives are so out of touch they'll be talking about denying women the vote next.
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    Anyway, these Conservatives are so out of touch they'll be talking about denying women the vote next.
    Well one of the other laws they suggested will allow a "gropers charter", so I suspect there's more chance of hell freezing over than their absurd suggestions even getting off the ground.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    Thought this was quite interesting - particularly given the attempted gagging of Greek state media at the moment.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10133076/Conservative-MPs-launch-attempt-to-bring-back-death-penalty-privatise-the-BBC-and-ban-burka.html
    An article about a bunch of right wing loons in the Tory party who also want to bring back the death penalty. Not much to read here really. Mind you if they are so for privatisation why not privatise the Queen?
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yorksdave wrote: »
    These private members bills have little chance of becoming law. Whilst Sky and possibly to a lesser extent itv and Channel Five might relish the prospect of a weakened BBC, starved of funding, they would not want a BBC competing for advertising revenue. Channel Four is a publicly owned broadcaster that is funded through advertising and in recent times seems to be struggling financially, and is a much better prospect for privatisation. In my opinion it is likely to be sold off if the conservative party were to win the next general election.

    It's the Conservative Party's equivalent to the Loony Left so people should not get too excited about it being likely to happen. I am sure Mr Bone's wife would not like it!
  • cyril-furrcyril-furr Posts: 1,518
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    An article about a bunch of right wing loons in the Tory party who also want to bring back the death penalty. Not much to read here really. Mind you if they are so for privatisation why not privatise the Queen?

    Far better to get rid of the BBC wastage of money & keep HRH the Queen, she & her family bring loads of tourists into the UK.
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,404
    Forum Member

    “This is a way for us as MPs to ensure that these popular policies wanted by so many of our constituents get Parliamentary airtime over the months ahead.”

    Hi hun. It's time for a reality check. Those policies are only popular with the usual swivel-eyed loon suspects and not with the wider public. I guess you'll have to learn that the hard way. :rolleyes:

    #epicfail
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    cyril-furr wrote: »
    Far better to get rid of the BBC wastage of money & keep HRH the Queen, she & her family bring loads of tourists into the UK.

    And the World Service isn't a valued international relations tool?
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,154
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    it does not matter what is in these bills, these bills just make the Tory party look like its in the middle of civil war, and an Alternative Queens Speech from MPs who are in government, is something close to treason.
  • Peter the GreatPeter the Great Posts: 14,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cyril-furr wrote: »
    Far better to get rid of the BBC wastage of money & keep HRH the Queen, she & her family bring loads of tourists into the UK.
    :yawn::rolleyes:No she doesn't. France has far more tourists than we do. People visit the royal buildings not the royal family and even then these royal buildings bring in far less tourism than many other tourist detinations in this Country. The BBC on the other hand is fantastic for the British economy.
  • phil solophil solo Posts: 9,669
    Forum Member
    mikw wrote: »
    You'd be right of course. But the government would rather that i think. A dumb, unquestioning populace is every government's dream.

    We have one of those already, IMO. Privatising the BBC is unnecessary :(
  • phil solophil solo Posts: 9,669
    Forum Member
    Tassium wrote: »
    In fact keeping the licence fee and letting a private firm run the BBC would be the worst of all possible set-ups.A private firm with guaranteed public money is lazy and 3rd-rate.

    See the Train Operating Companies for an example. Or any of the scammers running the Welfare to Work (i.e. "Indentured Servitude for Profit") Program.

    "Privatisation" seems these days to mean 'Corporate Welfare'. Where efficient and economical Public Service Provision is the goal, 'The Market' has repeatedly demonstrated that is actually a pretty sh*t operating model most of the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.