Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/06/20 10:33:13
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
Kilkrazy wrote: Presumably the Czech Republic offers free tuition to EU citizens. I am thinking of sending my daughter to university in Sweden or somewhere for the same reason.
That's a great idea... if you want her to get raped.
If hope you'll forgive my crass choice of words but I wanted to get the severity of the point across. I don't think it's a terribly great idea to send you Daughter to Sweden.
Child protection boss paid off with £134k after failing to speak out about abuse by Pakistani gangs is rehired as a consultant within 24 hours on £1k a DAY
Deputy children’s commissioner Sue Berelowitz criticised for not speaking out about sexual abuse by British Pakistani gangs
She took voluntary redundancy from her £99,333-a-year post on April 30 and received a pay-off worth £134,000
But the next day she was rehired to lead inquiry into family child abuse that she had been in charge of in her former role
A controversial child protection chief has quit her job with a six-figure payoff – only to be immediately rehired on almost £1,000 a day.
Deputy children’s commissioner Sue Berelowitz, who was criticised for failing to speak out about sexual abuse by British Pakistani gangs, took voluntary redundancy from her £99,333-a-year post on April 30.
She received a pay-off worth £134,000. But the next day she was rehired as a consultant, leading an inquiry into family child abuse that she had been in charge of in her former role.
The 61-year-old will be paid £960 a day under the new deal and will work for up to nine days a month. It means she will earn almost the same amount as she had been as a full-time employee – for much less work.
Last night, as MPs and victims’ groups described the deal as scandalous, the Treasury launched an inquiry into how it was agreed.
The case illustrated the revolving door culture in Whitehall, the NHS and local councils in which employees their jobs and receive large pay offs, only to be taken back on – often by the same organisation.
The Chancellor last night pledged to crack down on the abuse, putting an upper cap of £95,000 on the amount of redundancy that can be paid.
Keith Vaz, the former head of the Commons home affairs select committee, said the payoff received by Miss Berelowitz was ‘totally unacceptable’.
He added: ‘There is no justification for a public official to receive such a huge sum of money to then continue to do the same work.’ A Treasury spokesman added: ‘It’s wrong for someone to take redundancy payments then be immediately rehired as an external consultant.’
Miss Berelowitz caused controversy in 2012 when she wrote a report in the wake of high-profile abuse cases in Rochdale and Rotherham denying there was a growing number of Asian grooming gangs.
Despite finding that more than a quarter of perpetrators known to the authorities were Asian, Miss Berelowitz said there was no evidence to conclude that there was a particular issue with Asian gangs.
Instead, her report – branded ‘hysterical’ and ‘highly emotional’ – said simply that abuse is carried out by men of all backgrounds.
South African-born Miss Berelowitz started out as a speech and language therapist before gaining a masters degree in social work from Sussex University. The mother of two sons, who lives in a £950,000 house in Brighton with her husband, spent nearly five years as deputy director of children services at West Sussex County Council.
But some of its services were later labelled inadequate by Ofsted. And she caused controversy last year by warning against opening up secretive family courts to public scrutiny, claiming children might commit suicide if their names and troubled lives wereknown to the public.
Neither Miss Berelowitz nor the Office of the Children’s Commissioner were last night available for comment.
In essence a broad legal definition and a high rate of reporting (due to a high level of trust in the police and high levels of gender equality) severely distort the statistics. Does anyone really believe that Sweden could have a higher incidence of rape than India or somewhere like the UAE?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/20 11:27:03
Or you could look at Germany, where the states have huge legislative competence and control most of their spending, with taxes set collaboratively with the central authority through the upper house. Or the Swiss Cantons, which control most of their own taxation, and even delegate some tax powers down to the level of municipalities. My point in bringing up a range of examples was to illustrate that your hair-pulling whataboutery is nonsense; there are options, there are various levels of federal autonomy and they all seem to work well enough, so this idea that the UK is somehow uniquely unsuited to it is nonsense.
Sorry, but you actually haven't made a point. I said, 'FFA is bad because the financial reasons and difficulties such as x, y & z'. Your response has been, 'But other countries do it to varying levels!'. This does not prove that it works, or that it makes economic sense, and that it wouldn't be a massive headache in several departments.
And yet when you look around the world at the various responses to the financial crisis; stimulus-based responses mostly led to quicker recovery than austerity-based responses, to the point that even the IMF, no socialists they, now conclude that the Tory austerity plans are counter-productive. The economy did not pick up purely because they started borrowing heavily again, it was recovering prior to that, but it was recovering extremely slowly relative to stimulus-based responses, and the recovery only began to catch up once the government began pumping money back into the economy.
I'm not going to go into this one, because I know enough to know I don't know enough, and neither does 99.9% of the population. If you're so certain you have the right of it, and that the Tories are just financially incompetent morons, that's your prerogative.
You're kidding, right? Scotland's share of HS2 alone will be £4billion, and that's assuming it comes in on-budget. That project will not benefit us one iota,
And the above quoted investment projects benefit people outside of Scotland not at all, but we'll be putting money in. And?
London receives a vastly disproportionate level of investment compared to the rest of the UK,
In what way? Define 'infrastructure'. Because to me, that means roads, sewers, power and water capacity, and so forth. Things that are, by their very nature, placed where:-
a) the bulk of the population is (because that's where it tends to be needed), and
b) where the population density is highest.
Scotland, with a mere six million people, less than a tenth of the Union, does not get the same levels of infrastructure spending. Because it doesn't have as many people, and therefore doesn't need it so badly. What people there are, are also spread out more. The reason that the railway I quoted above will be the most subsidised one, is because there'll be the least number of people on it for the distance, because people in Scotland also tend to be a bit spread out. But the fact is, there is still a very expensive, highly subsidised railway being built. No, it's not as expensive as HS2. No, it won't serve as many people. But that's because building a HS2 in Scotland is pointless, because there aren't enough people around to use it.
I'm really not getting why you're so angry that people in one region of a country contribute proportionately to infrastructure in another. I don't begrudge Edinburgh its tramline. I daresay if Scotland had more people, it would get more infrastructure investment.
there have been years when it has gotten more than all other parts of the UK combined. The idea that it's based on population is laughable. Further, viewing infrastructure spending entirely as a passive response is short-sighted; infrastructure spending can spur new growth as well as support existing growth, and when our economy and government spending is already so massively unbalanced in favour of one section of the country, infrastructure spending should be being used as a tool to help alter that trend, not reinforce it.
I think Spain is excellent example of why you shouldn't just splash out on infrastructure in obscure parts of the country willy nilly. That being said, investing in infrastructure is a pure tool for growth hasn't been the case since the 1950's. It helps certainly, and there have been movements in that direction, but at the moment, the problem is that it's very hard to drive local investment (both in infrastructure and the associated businesses) when nobody is too sure what it should be going into. Sheffield used to rely on the steel trade for example, but now Asia's taken over in that department, nobody's too sure what it should be producing. It's all well and good to suggest that we should be investing in alternative industries, but in a highly globalised market, we find it difficult to produce much competitively.
As opposed to what, nuclear, that needs special deals done with government-mandated price-fixing to even be viable(indeed nuclear will cost the UK far more than renewables subsidy)? Coal, that gets £10bn in subsidies across the EU? Oil & Gas extraction, that benefits from hefty tax-breaks and shared decomissioning cost commitments? All forms of energy production are heavily subsidised, we do so because countries like to have control of their own energy supply, the only question is what we want to subsidise.
Oh, the nuclear fiasco is ridiculous. But the renewables sector tends to be just as bad.
Logically, the most economic thing to do is stick with oil and gas, but that has it's own drawbacks.
Also, what on earth are you on about? Scotland is a net-exporter of energy to the rest of the UK, variation in renewables output only determines the level of the export.
A net exporter...when the wind is blowing right. And then we 'export' it back. It's the joys of having an integrated national grid.
Additionally our capacity for renewables generation even at current levels of technological efficiency is enough to power ourselves and still remain an exporter, if exploited fully.
In other words, if someone pays the vast subsidies needed to erect an insane amount of infrastructure.
Incidentally, one of the projects that will now have to be shelved thanks to the cuts was an expansion of the hydro capacitor system, whereby existing and new hydro facilities were used to store generated renewables output. The Longannet closure, if it goes ahead, will eliminate our net positive status, but the Peterhead plant should still provide enough voltage support capacity to account for domestic use. It should also be noted that the reason the Longannet plant is in trouble in the first place is the ridiculous disparity in national grid Transmission Charges that see a Scottish power station told they have to pay £40million but sees plants in the SE of England given a subsidy.
You are aware that it's still paid for at a substantial discount, right? The issue really isn't quite as clear-cut or unfair as you're making it sound.
Then you've evidently not examined the issue particularly closely. Setting aside the fact that "full-Federalism" and "home rule" etc were what was promised to us during the referendum campaign,
Did you look at a newpaper at all during 2014? Google is your friend.
Since you didn't link, I went and did a bit of digging around. Cameron apparently said that FFA was an option on the table. So fair enough. I think it's a foolish thing to do, but if it was mentioned as being in the ballpark, he has to give a damn good reason as to why it won't happen if it doesn't.
From what I can see though, the issue now seems to be that if Scotland goes independent, that means the Barnett formula ceases to be in effect, and with oil revenues at a tenth of what they were, that could be problematic. I found this synopsis interesting and highly informative. It tallies with what I worked out with regards to Scotland's economy last year, so I'm going to take it at face value for the time being.
If this is anywhere near accurate, it would seem to be irresponsible to hand full fiscal autonomy over to the SNP, purely on the basis of the fact that at the moment, that would result in even deeper cuts in Scotland, without even looking at any other economic factors. I had a scroll through the comments, and the only person disagreeing had some of the more insane economic ideas I've seen, so I'm assuming it's reasonably on target. If you disagree with it, I would be interested to hear as to why.
The fact is, "squire",
Relax. I use the word 'squire' in the same way many people do the word 'mate'. No need to get snarky.
my comment was in regards to what will be, not what is now. You're worried about what FFA/devo-max will mean for the future of the Union, I'm trying to tell you that whatever the constitutional facts regarding Scotland's nationhood(and you're right, we're a region as things stand), treating us like a region in rhetorical or legislative terms will end the Union faster than any FFA settlement ever could. Doubly so when the Tories are in charge.
Possibly true. But the fact is, you are a region, and giving you too much of a different status is unfair to everybody else. Not only that, I very much get the feeling that you could put Florence Nightingale merged with Gandhi merged with Jesus Christ himself at the head of the Tory party, and most of Scotland would scream blue murder about every economic decision he made. I saw an interesting set of interviews with Scottish people where they gave out Tory policies, but pretended they were SNP ones, and practically all of the Scots asked were totally in favour of them. The ones told they were Tory though?. Instant opposition.
I've come to think it's not actually so much about facts anymore as it is Thatcher's legacy. It's just the same election being refought over and over.
Erm, really, at this point I have to ask; where are you getting your info from? Because up until the very limited powers we'll be getting over the next few years, almost every tax in Scotland IS "some diktat handed down from on high from Westminster" - literally the only tax powers we had were over council taxes and the power to vary only the basic rate of income tax by +3p. Income tax rates & bands, corporation tax, inheritance tax, excise duties, capital gains - everything else was reserved.
Benefits and social security, immigration, defence, foreign policy, employment, broadcasting, trade and industry, energy policy, consumer rights, data protection, constitutional matters, almost all taxation, and dozens of other individual Acts of Parliament are all reserved to Westminster. We get control over education, Scots law(both of which were already effectively independently run pre-devolution), agriculture, most but not all environmental regulations, health & social services, local government, arts & sport, tourism, and partial control of housing and transport. Even if we were to use the new, extremely modest tax powers proposed by the Smith Commission to raise additional revenue, we can't actually spend that money on most of the major policy areas that drive economic growth because they will remain reserved.
Sloppy wording of mine. I apologise.
Rolling back anti-trade union and anti-worker regulations was in the White Paper, and the SNPs 2015 manifesto contained a commitment to encouraging worker participation at board-level in companies, restoring the abolished consultation periods for large redundancies among other things, and a commitment to oppose the Tories' plans to further restrict the right to strike. The SNP aren't Old Labour, but they're more committed to collective bargaining than New/Nu/Neu Labour has been and is. The Scottish Government is taking a non-regulatory approach to living wage promotion, but support for a regulatory approach is growing and appears to be very popular among the tens of thousands of new members who joined the SNP in the wake of the referendum, so I expect that, if we were given the legislative authority, the leadership would be required to take a regulatory approach by the membership at Conference, and they'd get support in Parliament from the Greens, Independents, and a handful of the more enlightened Labour & Lib Dem MSPs. As for infrastructure spending, one of the proposals I most liked about the independence offering was the idea of locating government functions across the country rather than all in Edinburgh, so that not only the direct investment in new building and salaries would flow into various local economies but also the private sector buildup that inevitably surrounds government functions.
So, yes, given the powers I think those things, and many other things that we want to do differently than the UK at-large, would happen.
I wish I had your optimism.
Reading what you think someone said or wished they had said instead of what they actually said seems to be a recurring theme with your posts.
No, it was more just an idle comment/speculation on what would likely happen if what you propose were effected. Whether it would be a good thing or not is another debate altogether, but I suspect if you tried instituting particularly harsh regulatory controls, every bank remaining in Scotland would pull out as far as it was able to do so. And with Scotland remaining in the EU, I fear that all their lovely foreign tax havens would be affected not a jot.
Then again, I would suggest you've not been looking particularly hard. Here's a 22-page report published by N-56, to get you started, then I suggest you have a wander around the evidently partisan but thorough Business for Scotland website.
The link is dead?
I went to the Business For Scotland website, and took a gander at this one here:-
As far as I can see, most of the points seem to be generalities, 'Scotland spends lots of money therefore it will be a prosperous nation', cherrypicking of years to look good, and vague future predictions about the value of oil. The article I just linked earlier in this response drew from the same figures (the Scottish Governments GERS report) and seemed to reach a far more logical and nuanced conclusion.
There's nothing I can really say to such naked cynicism, and frankly it makes me wonder whether I'm wasting my time discussing this with you at all, since you've evidently already made up your mind and have no intention of honestly reconsidering.
I'm simply working from what I know of basic economics. You are, of course, free to disagree.
Although in all fairness, arguing on the internet has never been anything but a waste of time!
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2015/06/20 12:20:44
2015/06/20 12:06:06
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
I'm not sure why you asked be but ok. Yes I's like to see a local parliament of some kind for the north, the south east and perhaps the south west following a similar model to that which currently exists for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I'd like to see Parliament's power reduced or more accurately, devolved amongst these regional powers. I don't see this as a move towards independence nor do I wish to see any part of the UK become fully independent nations.
One aspect of current policy that worries me that does not receive any attention is the situation with Scottish students, who for obvious financial reasons go to Scottish universities. It's a form of educational apartheid which causes university students, an important group in society, to become two separate groups. I saw more Scots in the Czech republic when I studied there than I did at my university.
I'm just testing the mood. The newspapers keep saying that most people across the UK are in favour of more powers for their region, so I'm asking everybody if they want devolution for their part of the country.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara made the point that Full Fiscal Autonomy and/or federalism could weaken Britain.
I'll nail my colours to the mast and declare my pro-Scottish independence stance, but taking a step back, and trying to be impartial, I can't see any alternative to be honest.
The Union, as it stands, will not last. It's not just Scotland wanting more powers, it's the rest of the UK as well. We need to shift away from London and the SE dominance.
HS2 will not reach Scotland, or even Wales, but I'm expected to pay my taxes towards it, when their are local projects up here that go unfunded, which are badly needed.
A northern powerhouse could re-dress the balance in England, but federalism is the only answer in my book. And scrap that house of lords retirement home as well!
I would question as to why federalism is 'necessary'. Everyone talks about needing to 'shift away from London', but seems very sparse on what the alternative is. If London doesn't earn the money, who will? How? If we break down into individual fiefdoms of different nationalist politicians, how does a country maintain any kind of unified economic policy? How does it react to economic crises? How do you prevent living standards in different areas slipping in different provinces? How does your country control inflation, take out loans, or use any other key crucial financial levers?
Also, who says that delegating financial powers to a local Parliament will fix any problems? How? Also what are these massive problems that can only be solved by devolving economic policy? The truth is, I actually haven't even coherently heard why this needs to happen. The line is just, 'Financial devolution needs to happen because nationalism. And something about local investment. And fat cats in southeast england! Yeah!'.
The truth is, it's just a kneejerk reaction to Scottish nationalism. And Scotland voted to stay in the Union. Sure, chuck more local governance stuff up north, but full fiscal devolution? Utter madness that will economically break the Union far more certainly than any other alternative.
You've made some sound points. Some I agree with, some I don't agree with. But the bottom line is this: more powers were promised to Scotland if it voted NO, and in the GE last month, the SNP campaigned on a FFA pledge, and swept the board in Scotland. Whether or not you think it's good or bad for Scotland, this is a question of democracy.
I watched the HOC debate on the Scotland bill, and the Tories were backing at a rate of knots on more powers for Scotland. This level of duplicity will end the Union pretty soon IMO.
i think there is a growing feeling in the English population (which is by far the largest of the four home regions) that a lot of devolution has already been given away to the Scots, Welsh and Irish, which has benefitted them by things such as zero NHS prescription charges, and free university (in Scotland), on top of any previous national redistribution spending like the Barnett formula.
People in England who aren't part of the magic 10% at the top are feeling hard done by and blame the Westminster government, which let's face it currently represents the interests of only 25% of the voters, so it is not surprising that there is a growing movement for regional English autonomy. London, the supposed fount of wealth to power the UK, also contains several of the poorest and most deprived boroughs in the whole union.
But we should not take things too far. Opinion polling on the topic has not revealed a strong desire for regional parliaments so much as dissatisfaction with Westminster and the great deals the other regions are getting compared to the English.
Kilkrazy wrote: Presumably the Czech Republic offers free tuition to EU citizens. I am thinking of sending my daughter to university in Sweden or somewhere for the same reason.
I think they do but we were all exchange students. It was just odd to have to travel halfway across Europe to meet them.
In essence a broad legal definition and a high rate of reporting (due to a high level of trust in the police and high levels of gender equality) severely distort the statistics. Does anyone really believe that Sweden could have a higher incidence of rape than India or somewhere like the UAE?
It's still massively higher than equivalent European countries.
Ketara wrote: I think we're using the terms 'State' and 'Federal' in opposite ways. When I say 'State' I'm referring to the central Government, whereas you're referring to the individual State governments. And when I say 'Federal', I'm referring to a single individual chunk of the country (Scotland), whereas you're referring to the Central Government.
If that's the case, what you've written makes sense, and outlines how the USA, whilst federalised, does not confer fiscal autonomy on it's individual member states, but rather actually has a setup closer to the UK.
You got it man!
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/06/21 08:56:15
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
In essence a broad legal definition and a high rate of reporting (due to a high level of trust in the police and high levels of gender equality) severely distort the statistics. Does anyone really believe that Sweden could have a higher incidence of rape than India or somewhere like the UAE?
It's still massively higher than equivalent European countries.
I really see no point in keeping this scumbag alive.
People like that make me quite sick.
Speaking of rape, the average conviction rate is incredibly low. It's somewhere in the region of only 1 in 28 actual rapes get convicted. So when looking at a country's rape statistics, multiply it by 30 and you get a better estimate. Seeing as Sweden posts their report rate, I imagine that the actual rate is far lower.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
2015/06/21 20:10:54
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
Well, it is either discuss the constitutional issues arising from Scotland's place in the UK, or the intensely depressing and increasingly daft policies of the government.
Up to 30,000 overseas nurses face the axe under barmy Tory immigration laws that will spark an NHS staffing crisis.
Non-EU staff on less than £35,000 after six years here are to be kicked out. The Royal College of Nursing said: “This will cause NHS chaos.”
Already buckling under the pressure of savage Tory cuts, the NHS faces further turmoil with the axing of 30,000 foreign nurses.
But critics warn it will leave hospitals with a critical shortage of nurses at a time when more and more will be needed to cope with an aging population and the devastating effects of social care cuts.
And it could also mean up to £180million spent recruiting foreigners only to kick them out six years later will be wasted.
Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-plan-kick-30000-nurses-5925812. Not my usual paper, but the first result that came up on Google. It is worth noting that £35,000 apparently puts you in the top 20% of all British wages. And according to [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-average-salary-26500-figures-3002995the Mirror[/url] (yet again, bad trend, but they google easily apparently) most of the usual 'good jobs' fall beneath that level. So it seems to me that this £35,000 level is not very economically sound.
[EDIT: I misread this article. But I'll leave it here, since it is pretty interesting number crunching concerning immigration.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/22 11:08:19
2015/06/22 11:25:11
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
And England would own a share of the Edinburgh tramline, an SNP project which only benefited the Scottish, and ended up 375 million pounds overbudget. Or the Borders railway, which started off with a quote of £73 million, but has now hit £353 million, and is looking to be the most heavily subsidised line in the entire UK.
Minor note - the SNP themselves were very much against the Tram, which was signed in as a last gasp decision by the previous (Labour/Lib Dem) parliament precisely to make the looming SNP government look bad.
You would be hard pushed to find many people who think that the tram project "benefited the Scottish". Still, every civil engineer in Edinburgh made at least something off the ensuing debacle, so I can't be ENTIRELY against it...
2015/06/22 11:25:53
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
And England would own a share of the Edinburgh tramline, an SNP project which only benefited the Scottish, and ended up 375 million pounds overbudget. Or the Borders railway, which started off with a quote of £73 million, but has now hit £353 million, and is looking to be the most heavily subsidised line in the entire UK.
Minor note - the SNP themselves were very much against the Tram, which was signed in as a last gasp decision by the previous (Labour/Lib Dem) parliament precisely to make the looming SNP government look bad.
You would be hard pushed to find many people who think that the tram project "benefited the Scottish". Still, every civil engineer in Edinburgh made at least something off the ensuing debacle, so I can't be ENTIRELY against it...
He's got you on this one, Ketara. The SNP were dead against it, refusing extra funding and all, but it was Labour/Libs/Tories that combined to railroad it through. No pun intended.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, I'm going to raise a hobby horse of mine - BBC licence fee. Yes, it could probably do with a separate thread, but the issue with licence fee funding is getting decided this year. It could be replaced with a general taxation, which obviously makes it a political issue
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/22 11:31:49
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/06/22 12:19:05
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
In terms of licence fee, I don't know much about the legality, but what's the difference between a tax and the current method? Semantics?
See, you're trying to use people logic. DM uses Mandelogic, which we've established has 2+2=quack. - Aerethan
Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry. - Jihadin
AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world. - Iron_Captain
DakkaRank Comment: I sound like a Power Ranger.
TFOL and proud. Also a Forge World Fan.
I should really paint some of my models instead of browsing forums.
2015/06/22 12:33:35
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
I guess that it would change from being a flat fee that everyone has to pay, to part of your overall taxation which would then make it means-tested and all the rest.
2015/06/22 12:36:19
Subject: British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
ITV were perfectly happy with the licence fee while they were the only game in town for small screen advertising sales. In the internet era of course ITV has suffered like many other media channels from computer based competition, which does not affect the BBC at all. In fact the BBC arguably have taken advantage of the Internet to launch an extremely successful web site and a range of computer and app services that complement their normal TV and radio programmes.
The downside of financing the BBC through general taxation is that they will be a lot more dependent on the year to year whims of the government of the day.
Personally I believe the BBC and ITV make a very good range of programmes aimed at many different audiences. The BBC can do this because of the licence fee. ITV used to be able to do it because they had to compete with the BBC and they had the advertising revenue.
However if there is a problem now it is not the licence fee, it is the financing of ITV.
In my view the licence fee versus ITV system has produced a rich and successful TV and radio culture which is supplemented in the modern world by subscription based services including Sky and Netflix.
All this for about £1 per person per week for an average household. Not a bad deal in my view!
-Shrike- wrote: In terms of licence fee, I don't know much about the legality, but what's the difference between a tax and the current method? Semantics?
I may be wrong, but as it stands, dodging the licence fee is a civil matter, I think, and the penalty is less severe, and difficult to prove anyway!
But tax avoidance is obviously much more serious.
As it is, I know plenty of people who don't pay for a TV licence, simply because it's tricky to prove you were watching live TV without a licence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charles Rampant wrote: I guess that it would change from being a flat fee that everyone has to pay, to part of your overall taxation which would then make it means-tested and all the rest.
I bet our MPs would find a way to wiggle out of it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: ITV were perfectly happy with the licence fee while they were the only game in town for small screen advertising sales. In the internet era of course ITV has suffered like many other media channels from computer based competition, which does not affect the BBC at all. In fact the BBC arguably have taken advantage of the Internet to launch an extremely successful web site and a range of computer and app services that complement their normal TV and radio programmes.
The downside of financing the BBC through general taxation is that they will be a lot more dependent on the year to year whims of the government of the day.
Personally I believe the BBC and ITV make a very good range of programmes aimed at many different audiences. The BBC can do this because of the licence fee. ITV used to be able to do it because they had to compete with the BBC and they had the advertising revenue.
However if there is a problem now it is not the licence fee, it is the financing of ITV.
In my view the licence fee versus ITV system has produced a rich and successful TV and radio culture which is supplemented in the modern world by subscription based services including Sky and Netflix.
All this for about £1 per person per week for an average household. Not a bad deal in my view!
I like a lot of BBC's programmes, and if given the choice, would happily pay for them. But I resent the fact I don't get that choice. People decry Rupert Murdoch, but nobody forces me to buy Sky TV or The Sun.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/22 12:50:14
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/06/22 17:53:13
Subject: Re:British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
When I lived in the UK, I had forgotten to sort out my license (moving was hectic, I did honestly forget). But I never hooked up the TV to anything except my X Box, so I never thought about it. The dude came around one day and came in, and was shocked to find it wasn't hooked up. So he was going to let me off but I signed up for it anyway because I figured the BBC was worth paying for for all the wildlife documentaries I'd watched as a kid.
The modern BBC I'm less keen on, though, having seen some shockingly poor reporting especially on their website in recent years. Their coverage of Europe is really often wrong. My girlfriend has written to them to correct things in the past and gotten pretty snotty responses.
Could you NOT pay for TV license and just stream movies/shows over the 'Net?
Better than being subject to the horrors of advertising, the sheer quantity of advertising on US TV is outrageous. Commercial TV channels in the UK carry around half the adverts that US channels carry and they are still infuriating.
Essentially you don't need a TV license if you don't watch TV on a TV. You can still watch the BBC Iplayer without a license, or listen to the BBC radio channels, but that would make you a naughty person.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/22 20:35:09
Could you NOT pay for TV license and just stream movies/shows over the 'Net?
Better than being subject to the horrors of advertising, the sheer quantity of advertising on US TV is outrageous. Commercial TV channels in the UK carry around half the adverts that US channels carry and they are still infuriating.
That's why god created the TV remote... we can flip it to another channel during commericals.
That, and DVRs too.
*shrug*
It's a cultural thing.
Essentially you don't need a TV license if you don't watch TV on a TV. You can still watch the BBC Iplayer without a license, or listen to the BBC radio channels, but that would make you a naughty person.
I see. Interesting...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/06/22 20:42:58
Subject: Re:British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway
Silent Puffin? wrote: Essentially you don't need a TV license if you don't watch TV on a TV. You can still watch the BBC Iplayer without a license, or listen to the BBC radio channels, but that would make you a naughty person.
If you are watching or recording any live broadcast, in any way, you need a TV licence.
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
Watching TV on the internet You need to be covered by a licence if you watch TV online at the same time as it's being broadcast on conventional TV in the UK or the Channel Islands.
Video recorders and digital recorders like Sky+ You need a licence if you record TV as it's broadcast, whether that's on a conventional video recorder or digital box.
Mobile phones A licence covers you to watch TV as it's broadcast on a mobile phone, whether you're at home or out and about.
-Shrike- wrote: In terms of licence fee, I don't know much about the legality, but what's the difference between a tax and the current method? Semantics?
I may be wrong, but as it stands, dodging the licence fee is a civil matter, I think, and the penalty is less severe, and difficult to prove anyway!
But tax avoidance is obviously much more serious.
As it is, I know plenty of people who don't pay for a TV licence, simply because it's tricky to prove you were watching live TV without a licence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charles Rampant wrote: I guess that it would change from being a flat fee that everyone has to pay, to part of your overall taxation which would then make it means-tested and all the rest.
I bet our MPs would find a way to wiggle out of it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: ITV were perfectly happy with the licence fee while they were the only game in town for small screen advertising sales. In the internet era of course ITV has suffered like many other media channels from computer based competition, which does not affect the BBC at all. In fact the BBC arguably have taken advantage of the Internet to launch an extremely successful web site and a range of computer and app services that complement their normal TV and radio programmes.
The downside of financing the BBC through general taxation is that they will be a lot more dependent on the year to year whims of the government of the day.
Personally I believe the BBC and ITV make a very good range of programmes aimed at many different audiences. The BBC can do this because of the licence fee. ITV used to be able to do it because they had to compete with the BBC and they had the advertising revenue.
However if there is a problem now it is not the licence fee, it is the financing of ITV.
In my view the licence fee versus ITV system has produced a rich and successful TV and radio culture which is supplemented in the modern world by subscription based services including Sky and Netflix.
All this for about £1 per person per week for an average household. Not a bad deal in my view!
I like a lot of BBC's programmes, and if given the choice, would happily pay for them. But I resent the fact I don't get that choice. People decry Rupert Murdoch, but nobody forces me to buy Sky TV or The Sun.
That seems to me like a misplaced ideological argument.
If the BBC were funded by taxation, you would be more forced to pay for their programmes than now, as it would come out of your PAYE.
You would have less choice in the matter as even people who don't have TVs and don't need a licence would end up paying for the BBC.
That's why god created the TV remote... we can flip it to another channel during commericals.
That, and DVRs too.
*shrug*
As adverts tend to be screened by all commercial channels at the same time all you are really doing by flipping channels is...watching different adverts
Personally I just record what ever I am going to watch and fast forward through all the crap.
A lot of people these days watch TV on catch-up services like BBC iPlayer on a computer or tablet.
TVs as such are not really TVs any more. They are computers that have a built-in digital TV frequency receiver. SmartTVs can at least in theory get all the programme data using the built-in web browser and a WiFi connection.
