The Spending Review (tackling the Socialists debt mountain)

[docker-p]

I was reading an article in todays Daily Mail (now that i've got a few shares i've switched from the Express) which correctly questions the BBC's impartiality. Directly after the spending review they have a question time in Middlesbrough, next time it's in Glasgow, and then in Sheffield. The Marxists within the BBC are clearly doing this deliberately so that the Conservatives get a rough ride.

 

There is not a day that goes by without the Daily Mail having a pop at the BBC for something. It's a pity that a few of their readers believe their rabid anti BBC agenda without asking themselves why the Mail holds such a stance. Nothing to do with the DMs owners wanting a piece of the Broadcasting business should the BBC be scaled down?

The BBC is possibly the most important News and broadcasting agency in the world. It's reputation for thorough and impartial reporting is second to none, and a British institution envied around the world.

I expect that the Daily Mail omitted to mention that the BBC goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure the make up of the Question TIme audience accurately reflects the political views of the Nation. I know, I've applied to attend in the past. And the Daily Mail will have known this too. But unlike the BBC they have no constitution that demands accurate impartial reporting.

In the words of one of most respected journalists around, John Simpson, you won't realise how good the BBC is until it's gone.

[docker-p]

The BBC definitely have a left wing bias, that is pretty obvious. I suppose in this case they are directly effected by government cuts so are bound to be against them.

The right wing in every country interprets impartial reporting as left wing bias.

I personally think they lack the necessary intellect to understand that reporting both sides of an opposing view is called balance, not bias. Just my personal opinion.

[Verbal]

Interesting opinion from a Nobel-winning economist:

 

What happens now? Maybe Britain will get lucky, and something will come along to rescue the economy. But the best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=2&ref=paulkrugman

 

So all those waving the bunting at the cuts and job losses, you're like turkeys voting for Christmas. You will be thrown out of employment, or your company wrecked, too.

 

(And just to add, since one of the neanderthals will no doubt object: Klugman is NOT saying there is no need for spending cuts.)

[Verbal]

And here's Christopher P i s s arides (damn the swear filter!), the LSE economist who won the Nobel last week:

 

Britain's new Nobel Prize winning economist, Professor Christopher P is s arides, has warned that the Government was taking "unnecessary risks" at a time when the economy remained weak.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9326948

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The right wing in every country interprets impartial reporting as left wing bias.

I personally think they lack the necessary intellect to understand that reporting both sides of an opposing view is called balance, not bias. Just my personal opinion.

 

http://order-order.com/2010/10/19/paranoid-about-left-wing-bbc-bias/

[badgerx16]

Which is precisely my reaction to the public sector job cuts. The debt mountain and the deficit are unfortunate, but have presented the Tories with a once in a generation opportunity to really hammer the Socialist system. Only so much can be done in 5 years, but if we can get a majority Conservative govt next time I think the public sector can be pacified once and for all.

I'm beginning to get a picture of the 'real' person behind the Dune/ Stanley/ Mole / etc internet disguise, and if it's anything like the truth, I pity you. Sad, lonely, and deliberately antagonising other posters because their response is the only intelligent communication you get with the outside world.

[Whitey Grandad]

Any evidence for this ridiculous sweeping statement?

 

I remember the interview with Neil Kinnock on the 'Today' programme just before he lost the general election. It was the most cringingly sycophantic bit of radio I have ever heard. Some of us have long memories.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I remember the interview with Neil Kinnock on the 'Today' programme just before he lost the general election. It was the most cringingly sycophantic bit of radio I have ever heard. Some of us have long memories.

 

One incident on one radio show is hardly concrete. I appreciate that you're not going to be able to provide me with a list of examples however. Therefore it cannot be proved, it is only a hunch or at best a presumption

[CB Saint]

And here's Christopher P i s s arides (damn the swear filter!), the LSE economist who won the Nobel last week:

 

Britain's new Nobel Prize winning economist, Professor Christopher P is s arides, has warned that the Government was taking "unnecessary risks" at a time when the economy remained weak.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9326948

 

 

Trouble is no one knows what the outcome will be, 1931 Britain was different to 1997 Japan whcih was different to 1937 uSA which is different to 2010 Britain.

 

Yes one Nobel Laureate has come of out to say he thinks the government got it wrong, I suspect that the government will roll out a couple of their own over the next few days. Trouble is with these economists is that they never seem to agree. Predicting the future, by its very nature, is an inexact science, so it will be riddled with inaccuracies.

 

Let's hope this bloke is wrong and everything turns out ok.

[Whitey Grandad]

One incident on one radio show is hardly concrete. I appreciate that you're not going to be able to provide me with a list of examples however. Therefore it cannot be proved, it is only a hunch or at best a presumption

 

Such perceptions must of course be subjective, but I have been listening to this programme for a few decades now and it is quite noticeable how the interviewers let Labour politicians speak freely whilst persistently interrupting Conservative speakers.

[Whitey Grandad]

Here's more from the Daily Mail (so it must be true )

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-436794/What-loneliest-job-Britain-Being-Tory-BBC.html

[bridge too far]

Here's more from the Daily Mail (so it must be true )

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-436794/What-loneliest-job-Britain-Being-Tory-BBC.html

 

owned by

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Harmsworth,_4th_Viscount_Rothermere

 

quelle surprise then

[aintforever]

The right wing in every country interprets impartial reporting as left wing bias.

I personally think they lack the necessary intellect to understand that reporting both sides of an opposing view is called balance, not bias. Just my personal opinion.

 

I would say I'm more left wing than right, I certainly would never vote Tory.

 

There is obviously no evidence either way about the BBC's bias as it's subjective. It's just an impression I get from watching it and reading the website, any story that helps the left wing agenda seems to be covered with particular vigor.

[Johnny Bognor]

Here's more from the Daily Mail (so it must be true )

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-436794/What-loneliest-job-Britain-Being-Tory-BBC.html

 

Of course there is something in this. The BBC is a public sector/service which has a disproportionate number of lefties in it, when compared to private organisations. I am surprised anyone is surprised by or denies this......the leftie propaganda machine is counter balanced by Murdoch, so across all media there probably is some sense of balance.

 

Here is a starter for 10:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/is-the-bbc-really-left-wing-552929.html

 

 

"There was massive left-wing bias at the BBC” says the former Director General of the BBC

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

 

 

The BBC are the biggest Media owner. It is no coincidence that the biggest recruitment advertising for Media is ...............in the Guardian.

(Notice that I haven't used right wing media to make my point, so even the leftie media believe it is so)

 

... and even the BBC have it in their own report

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do

 

 

Can we talk about something else now, perhaps where there is a shade of grey and some room for debate, like "is the Pope a Catholic"?

Edited 24 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

Trouble is no one knows what the outcome will be, 1931 Britain was different to 1997 Japan whcih was different to 1937 uSA which is different to 2010 Britain.

 

Yes one Nobel Laureate has come of out to say he thinks the government got it wrong, I suspect that the government will roll out a couple of their own over the next few days. Trouble is with these economists is that they never seem to agree. Predicting the future, by its very nature, is an inexact science, so it will be riddled with inaccuracies.

 

Let's hope this bloke is wrong and everything turns out ok.

 

 

Actually not one Nobel laureate but two. Who would you tend to believe? Them or Osborne?

[Verbal]

Of course there is something in this. The BBC is a public sector/service which has a disproportionate number of lefties in it, when compared to private organisations. I am surprised anyone is surprised by or denies this......the leftie propaganda machine is counter balanced by Murdoch, so across all media there probably is some sense of balance.

 

Here is a starter for 10:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/is-the-bbc-really-left-wing-552929.html

 

 

"There was massive left-wing bias at the BBC” says the former Director General of the BBC

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

 

 

The BBC are the biggest Media owner. It is no coincidence that the biggest recruitment advertising for Media is ...............in the Guardian.

(Notice that I haven't used right wing media to make my point, so even the leftie media believe it is so)

 

... and even the BBC have it in their own report

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do

 

 

Can we talk about something else now, perhaps where there is a shade of grey and some room for debate, like "is the Pope a Catholic"?

 

I can't tell whether you've been misled or are deliberately being misrepresentative.

 

The New Statesman article refers not to the 'former' DG of the BBC, but the present one, Mark Thompson. And he's not talking about 'left-wing bias' now - but more than 30 years ago, in 1979!

 

The Independent and Standard articles are quoting John Bridcut's report, which is really a narrow public opinion piece that mixes two issues - the well known fact that support for the BBC declines the further North you go (hence Greg Dyke's decision to build Salford Quays), and arguments about political bias.

 

The equation you make between the BBC as 'public service' and any political leaning is false, in my very direct experience. The BBC is, above all, a branch of the civil service in mentality, and consequently is prone, among management certainly, to be too obeisant to authority. (I can quote chapter and verse on this from personal experience, but I think it'll be wasted on you.)

 

I do not want to be cast in the role of defending the BBC. There is an awful lot wrong with it - mostly to do with that civil service mentality and the appalling ways in which it reduces programme making to the status of also-ran, behind the more important functions of HR, faciltiies management, etc., and the way it casually imposes its rather authoritarian management style on a largely casualised workforce among programme makers.

 

But left wing bias? I wish!

Edited 24 October, 2010 by Verbal

[Johnny Bognor]

I can't tell whether you've been misled or are deliberately being misrepresentative.

 

The New Statesman article refers not to the 'former' DG of the BBC, but the present one, Mark Thompson. And he's not talking about 'left-wing bias' now - but more than 30 years ago, in 1979!!

 

My mistake, should have slowed down, but the DG seems to think it was a problem in the past. Even if it was in the past, it generally explains why people think it is left wing.

 

The Independent and Standard articles are quoting John Bridcut's report, which is really a narrow public opinion piece that mixes two issues - the well known fact that support for the BBC declines the further North you go (hence Greg Dyke's decision to build Salford Quays), and arguments about political bias.

 

The equation you make between the BBC as 'public service' and any political leaning is false, in my very direct experience. The BBC is, above all, a branch of the civil service in mentality, and consequently is prone, among management certainly, to be too obeisant to authority. (I can quote chapter and verse on this from personal experience, but I think it'll be wasted on you.)

 

A significant amount of recruitment advertising for the BBC is placed in the Guardian. When they advertise in the Times or the Torygraph, then I may begin to believe you.

 

I do not want to be cast in the role of defending the BBC. There is an awful lot wrong with it - mostly to do with that civil service mentality and the appalling ways in which it reduces programme making to the status of also-ran, behind the more important functions of HR, faciltiies management, etc., and the way it casually imposes its rather authoritarian management style on a largely casualised workforce among programme makers.

 

You clearly know what you are talking about here, but the very fact that the importance of HR is placed on a level playing field with programme making (according to you) contradicts the point you are making. An organisation that is heavy into HR, tends to be more left wing in its attitude.

 

But left wing bias? I wish!

 

If it is not left wing (and I still think it is), it is certainly very liberal in its outlook.

[CB Saint]

Actually not one Nobel laureate but two. Who would you tend to believe? Them or Osborne?

 

Neither actually - GO's numbers are based upon forecasts produced by the treasury (some seriously bright people in there) based upon the coalitions political will. I have no idea what the economists you mentioned are using - I notice they were talking "if buts and maybes" so is it conjecture or is there some other evidence they are using.

 

At the end of the day, no one has a clue. I suspect that (as always) the government figures are generous and the economists version of doom and gloom is overstated and we will fall somewhere in the middle.

[Verbal]

No, Johnny, the significance that the BBC places on all its bureaucratic activities, above that of programme-making, is that it is a bureaucracy, much like any other in the civil service - and like anywhere else in the civil service, it brings with it a natural conservatism (with a small c). Have you ever read George Orwell's 1984? His commentary on the accommodations of the BBC in relation to those in power (whomever it may be) is still valid today. You could certainly absorb all the cuts imposed on the BBC by radically rethinking its bureaucratic structure - making it more C4-like. But that won't happen. The axe will fall instead on programmes. As someone who is currently talking to (almost) the highest level, with the BBC on a regional issue in the North of England, I can see all too clearly what continues to grab managers' attention - and it isn't programmes.

 

In 1979, the focus of criticism of the BBC, after five years of thoroughly exhausted Labour government, was that it was too RIGHT wing! Thompson is not to be trusted in his opinion on this. He may have been there, but he seems to have a very selective memory, and wouldn't have said this were it not agenda-driven - for example to try and deflect the very criticism that you and others make.. The criticisms in the 70s were led by what at the time was the hugely influential Glasgow Media Group, whose book, Bad News, framed the whole debate about right wing bias in the BBC and ITV from the mid to late 70s.

 

As for advertising in the Guardian, the BBC places almost NO programme making jobs there. I challenge you to show me one advert for a television producer of a networked programme.

 

A liberal outlook? Look who leads. Thompson is by no means a Labour apparatchik, and his predecessor, Greg Dyke is essentially a Tory (and advised the Tories this and last year on media policy). At least one channel controller has always openly (and gleefully) said he's a Tory. The nature of BBC politics is much more complex and nuanced than you suggest.

 

Back on topic, I see that about 10% of the lost jobs in Osborne's cuts will be teachers. This is an exact parallel of what will happen at the Beeb - it's the essential frontline people who get the chop first, not the pen pushers who maintain the power to cut in the bureaucracy.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/20/schools-money-budgets-staff-cuts

[Verbal]

Neither actually - GO's numbers are based upon forecasts produced by the treasury (some seriously bright people in there) based upon the coalitions political will. I have no idea what the economists you mentioned are using - I notice they were talking "if buts and maybes" so is it conjecture or is there some other evidence they are using.

 

At the end of the day, no one has a clue. I suspect that (as always) the government figures are generous and the economists version of doom and gloom is overstated and we will fall somewhere in the middle.

 

Well then that's your problem. If you really trust Osborne over Nobel laureates, I despair. In any case the bright young things you're so proud of in the Treasury were also there when Brown was in power.

 

And by the way, if no one can predict, how come at least one of the Nobel laureates - Krugman - actually did predict the financial crisis in 2008? He was banging on about it relentlessly.

 

There is some notion out there that somehow, government finances are this huge state secret, and that only the privileged few can see them. This is far from the truth and always has been. Economists really don't have to be inside the government to produce compelling models of how government finances, or indeed the British economy, work.

[badgerx16]

Economists really don't have to be inside the government to produce compelling models of how government finances, or indeed the British economy, work.

If you go to the Science Museum you can see this :

 

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I033/10303308.aspx

[CB Saint]

Well then that's your problem. If you really trust Osborne over Nobel laureates, I despair. In any case the bright young things you're so proud of in the Treasury were also there when Brown was in power.

 

And by the way, if no one can predict, how come at least one of the Nobel laureates - Krugman - actually did predict the financial crisis in 2008? He was banging on about it relentlessly.

 

There is some notion out there that somehow, government finances are this huge state secret, and that only the privileged few can see them. This is far from the truth and always has been. Economists really don't have to be inside the government to produce compelling models of how government finances, or indeed the British economy, work.

 

Thats not what I said. You are trying to create a left vs right agruement when in fact I fall somewhere in the middle of this one.

 

Some people get it right when they predict some don't. Krugman did in the 2008 case but that doesn't make him right now. That is the problem of forecasting.

 

I tend to listen to all of it and make my mind up from there. Hence my statement that it will be somewhere between the government rosy optimism and the economists' bleak double dip scenario.

[Verbal]

Thats not what I said. You are trying to create a left vs right agruement when in fact I fall somewhere in the middle of this one.

 

Some people get it right when they predict some don't. Krugman did in the 2008 case but that doesn't make him right now. That is the problem of forecasting.

 

I tend to listen to all of it and make my mind up from there. Hence my statement that it will be somewhere between the government rosy optimism and the economists' bleak double dip scenario.

 

No, I'm not trying to make anything left v right (as my point about Brown should really have made clear). I have no interest in that whatsoever. What I find desperate - and it's fairly commonplace right now - is the philistine shoulder-shrugging stuff that dismisses intelligent, expert opinion as more or less equivalent to the ideologically driven 'analysis' offered up by Osborne et al.

[Verbal]

Oh, and Johnny, on money/mouth matters, I'm interviewing James Heath on Friday - he heads up strategy for BBC news and sport. If you - or anyone - can formulate the bias question reasonably, I'll ask it and let you know what he says.

[Whitey Grandad]

Oh, and Johnny, on money/mouth matters, I'm interviewing James Heath on Friday - he heads up strategy for BBC news and sport. If you - or anyone - can formulate the bias question reasonably, I'll ask it and let you know what he says.

 

Something along the lines of 'How do you ensure that there is no political bias in your coverage and do you think you achieve impartiality?' ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Ask him why I have to pay a poll tax , whether I want to watch his programmes or not?

[bridge too far]

Ask him why I have to pay a poll tax , whether I want to watch his programmes or not?

 

Don't you listen to the radio. then?

[benjii]

Trouble is no one knows what the outcome will be, 1931 Britain was different to 1997 Japan whcih was different to 1937 uSA which is different to 2010 Britain.

 

Yes one Nobel Laureate has come of out to say he thinks the government got it wrong, I suspect that the government will roll out a couple of their own over the next few days. Trouble is with these economists is that they never seem to agree. Predicting the future, by its very nature, is an inexact science, so it will be riddled with inaccuracies.

 

Let's hope this bloke is wrong and everything turns out ok.

 

Economists, generally, are pretty rubbish at predicting the future.

 

If you were to test, to any scientific rigour, economic predictions that weren't qualified to the point of meaningless or generalised to the point of uselessness you would probably soon conclude that the predictive value of economic "experts" is pretty minimal.

 

However, he might be right.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Don't you listen to the radio. then?

 

Yes, to commercial radio.

 

Good point

 

Why should I pay a poll tax regardless of whether I watch their programmes or listen to their radio stations?

[bridge too far]

Yes, to commercial radio.

 

Good point

 

Why should I pay a poll tax regardless of whether I watch their programmes or listen to their radio stations?

 

So you never, ever, watch BBC TV or listen to BBC radio? Yeah right

[dune]

Yes, to commercial radio.

 

Good point

 

Why should I pay a poll tax regardless of whether I watch their programmes or listen to their radio stations?

 

Taxation is a means by which to control so is naturally key to Socialist ideologies. The Socialists/Marxists love of cctv and speed cameras is another example of how these people want to control every aspect of everyone elses lives. Conservatism/Capitalism on the other hand is about freedom and allowing people to do their own thing. I think the Marxists on here are naive to the ideologies of the political system they represent.

[Verbal]

Every village has one.

[dune]

Every village has one.

 

And every forum have those who resort to insults when they have no counter argument.

 

As it goes I can understand why some people vote Liberal because they beleieve in civil liberties, but to vote Labour is to vote to be a slave to the Socialist system. A top heavy system layerered in buerocracy that is all about taking away civil liberties (spending power is a civil liberty so the Socialists love of high taxes fits perfectly) and dictating from above every aspect of how everyone should live their lives.

 

That is what the Socialist/Communist parties are all about.

Edited 25 October, 2010 by dune

[Seaford Saint]

I want to nationalise the banks to get them to lend, nationalise the trains so we have a cheaper better service, nationalise the water companies to stop foreign ownership of our utilities. That's just for starters. Then I would like the same for our other utility companies so that we own the utilities we depend on.

 

How anyone can pretend that Bristish Gas is a private company when it is pretty much monopoly is beyond me. They can pretty much charge what they want.....

 

Does labour want anything to with any of the above....no. So stop artificially introducing differences between the 2 "parties". I for one can't tell them apart.

[Fuengirola Saint]

I want to nationalise the banks to get them to lend, nationalise the trains so we have a cheaper better service, nationalise the water companies to stop foreign ownership of our utilities. That's just for starters. Then I would like the same for our other utility companies so that we own the utilities we depend on.

 

How anyone can pretend that Bristish Gas is a private company when it is pretty much monopoly is beyond me. They can pretty much charge what they want.....

 

Does labour want anything to with any of the above....no. So stop artificially introducing differences between the 2 "parties". I for one can't tell them apart.

 

Well said, The only difference between the major parties is the manner in which they manage the Right wing Neoliberal

agenda.

[Whitey Grandad]

Don't you listen to the radio. then?

You don't need a licence for the radio.

[Whitey Grandad]

I want to nationalise the banks to get them to lend, nationalise the trains so we have a cheaper better service, nationalise the water companies to stop foreign ownership of our utilities. That's just for starters. Then I would like the same for our other utility companies so that we own the utilities we depend on.

 

Where are the banks going to get this money that you want them to lend? The money is there if you meet the criteria. If you think the trains will be cheaper if they were nationalised then you must accept that there would have to be massive subsidies, and that's without the inefficiencies inherent in all nationalised industries. If you want British ownership of the utilities then why don't you buy them?

[Verbal]

And every forum have those who resort to insults when they have no counter argument.

 

As it goes I can understand why some people vote Liberal because they beleieve in civil liberties, but to vote Labour is to vote to be a slave to the Socialist system. A top heavy system layerered in buerocracy that is all about taking away civil liberties (spending power is a civil liberty so the Socialists love of high taxes fits perfectly) and dictating from above every aspect of how everyone should live their lives.

 

That is what the Socialist/Communist parties are all about.

 

The problem is your 'views' are so bizarrely crude as to defy sensible discussion. It would be like trying to argue with a Taliban.

[bridge too far]

You don't need a licence for the radio.

 

I know that - but BBC Radio programmes are still funded from the licence fee.

[Seaford Saint]

I agree with the fact that the money is there, within the banks. I believe the banks want to hold onto it, plainly wrong in my view, at least in terms of what the country needs now. If the banks were nationalised we could hold the banks to account so that they did lend.

 

I believe there is already subsidies within the train companies now, despite the fact that they are privatised.

[Whitey Grandad]

I agree with the fact that the money is there, within the banks. I believe the banks want to hold onto it, plainly wrong in my view, at least in terms of what the country needs now. If the banks were nationalised we could hold the banks to account so that they did lend.

 

I believe there is already subsidies within the train companies now, despite the fact that they are privatised.

The banks have to rebuild their margins which means lending money at higher differential rates than before. There is not the amount of credit available to the banks as there was a few years ago, hence why it's called 'credit crunch'. They don't want to lend it to each other in case they need ot for themselves.

[Whitey Grandad]

I know that - but BBC Radio programmes are still funded from the licence fee.

 

So why should only television viewers pay for the BBC? No - I don't want to start a big debate on this but it is all part of the wider question of how the BBC should be funded. What really gets my goat is all the trailers that we have to suffer on both BBC television and radio. I sometimes think there's no difference between them and the commercial channels.

[bridge too far]

Whilst I think the BBC has dumbed down to some extent (television, that is) I guess that's because they're charged with increasing audience share and they have to compete with the dross that is shown on the commercial channels.

 

Last night, I watched a programme about David Attenborough, followed by the latest instalment of the excellent David Tennant drama.

 

Those two programmes alone delivered far better value for money than the £70 odd a month we pay for Sky. If it was my decision alone, I'd cancel Sky right now and I never watch ITV.

[Block 5]

I can't wait for the cuts to kick in and for this country to go to the dogs again.

I have fond memories of the 80s; living in a bus, attending regular riots, squatting houses, vibrant youth counter-cultures and the beginning of the acid house scene.

Hopefully we'll see the end of depressing, celebrity obsessed, money orientated, Simon Cowell fuelled, corporate, soulless, manufactured music for morons.

[badgerx16]

And every forum have those who resort to insults when they have no counter argument.

 

As it goes I can understand why some people vote Liberal because they beleieve in civil liberties, but to vote Labour is to vote to be a slave to the Socialist system. A top heavy system layerered in buerocracy that is all about taking away civil liberties (spending power is a civil liberty so the Socialists love of high taxes fits perfectly) and dictating from above every aspect of how everyone should live their lives.

 

That is what the Socialist/Communist parties are all about.

 

I know I shouldn't, but I'll bite.

 

The problem with leaving everything to capitalism and the markets is that all too quickly greed becomes the driving force, and those at the lower end of the social scale get chewed up, spat out, and ground down There isn't enough room at the top table for everybody to have an equal chance at getting a fair share, and those towards the top of the ladder will desperately stamp on anybody aspiring to climb towards them; 'It's mine, all mine, and you aren't getting any of it'. Socialism is about taking a little bit extra from those with far too much to know how to cope with it, ( or at least sufficient to be 'comfortably off' ), and using it to make life bearable for those at the bottom. It's effectively about enforced philanthropy, equality, and altruism, because they have become forgotten concepts in modern society. It's about acknowledging that simply letting market forces dictate social policy is divisive and dangerous.

 

The failure of Socialism is that in order to get into a position of Governance in a country today, you have to enslave yourself to mammon, and end up irretreivably bound to the very forces you are trying to balance out.

Edited 25 October, 2010 by badgerx16

[AndyNorthernSaints]

And every forum have those who resort to insults when they have no counter argument.

 

As it goes I can understand why some people vote Liberal because they beleieve in civil liberties, but to vote Labour is to vote to be a slave to the Socialist system. A top heavy system layerered in buerocracy that is all about taking away civil liberties (spending power is a civil liberty so the Socialists love of high taxes fits perfectly) and dictating from above every aspect of how everyone should live their lives.

 

That is what the Socialist/Communist parties are all about.

 

Here's a christmas present idea for you Stanley. Might bring back some memories for you from your NF days.

 

http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/afa-book/

[Jonnyboy]

Taxation is a means by which to control so is naturally key to Socialist ideologies. The Socialists/Marxists love of cctv and speed cameras is another example of how these people want to control every aspect of everyone elses lives. Conservatism/Capitalism on the other hand is about freedom and allowing people to do their own thing. I think the Marxists on here are naive to the ideologies of the political system they represent.

 

yeah the tories have never banned anything, duh

[Johnny Bognor]

No, Johnny, the significance that the BBC places on all its bureaucratic activities, above that of programme-making, is that it is a bureaucracy, much like any other in the civil service - and like anywhere else in the civil service, it brings with it a natural conservatism (with a small c). Have you ever read George Orwell's 1984? His commentary on the accommodations of the BBC in relation to those in power (whomever it may be) is still valid today. You could certainly absorb all the cuts imposed on the BBC by radically rethinking its bureaucratic structure - making it more C4-like. But that won't happen. The axe will fall instead on programmes. As someone who is currently talking to (almost) the highest level, with the BBC on a regional issue in the North of England, I can see all too clearly what continues to grab managers' attention - and it isn't programmes.

 

Very public sector. Sod the product, sod the customer as long as I'm alright jack

 

In 1979, the focus of criticism of the BBC, after five years of thoroughly exhausted Labour government, was that it was too RIGHT wing! Thompson is not to be trusted in his opinion on this. He may have been there, but he seems to have a very selective memory, and wouldn't have said this were it not agenda-driven - for example to try and deflect the very criticism that you and others make.. The criticisms in the 70s were led by what at the time was the hugely influential Glasgow Media Group, whose book, Bad News, framed the whole debate about right wing bias in the BBC and ITV from the mid to late 70s.

 

It may be the case that Thompson isn't to be trusted, but are you?

 

As for advertising in the Guardian, the BBC places almost NO programme making jobs there. I challenge you to show me one advert for a television producer of a networked programme.

 

Out of interest, how many people as a proportion of the BBC are in programme making?

 

A liberal outlook? Look who leads. Thompson is by no means a Labour apparatchik, and his predecessor, Greg Dyke is essentially a Tory (and advised the Tories this and last year on media policy). At least one channel controller has always openly (and gleefully) said he's a Tory. The nature of BBC politics is much more complex and nuanced than you suggest.

 

Obviously there are people behind the scenes who are not left wing as there are on the front line (Jeremy Clarkson, Nick Robinson - political editor who was former Chair of the young conservatives, etc etc) as is the case in any large organisation. There is probably the odd Nazi or too that works in White City. However, with any public sector bureaucracy, there is a tending to lean to the left by the nature of its very existence.

 

 

Back on topic, I see that about 10% of the lost jobs in Osborne's cuts will be teachers. This is an exact parallel of what will happen at the Beeb - it's the essential frontline people who get the chop first, not the pen pushers who maintain the power to cut in the bureaucracy.

 

Unfortunately that is the way of the world and is no different in the private sector. Goodwin gets a £7m pension, while tens of thousands of RBS bank workers get shown the door. It's not right, but that is the way it is. I didn't see the lefties on here lamenting the 1m+ private sector workers who have lost their jobs over the last two years, especially when most of them are at the lower end of the pay scale. Now the affects are closer to home, you are all getting your knickers in a twist. I thought socialists were to show concern for all working people, not just public sector workers (who already have union protection). Teachers wil be OK, they are well educated (as we are constantly reminded). What about the uneducated or semi skilled staff in retail, construction, manufacuring, etc etc

Edited 25 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Very public sector. Sod the product, sod the customer as long as I'm alright jack etc

 

Oh behave: What you've described there is the foundations on which the private sector is built on! "We will provide an inferior product, for as much sodding profit as possible and sod the mug of a consumer who walks through the door."

 

'The public sector', the clue is in the name; it's there to help the public.

 

'The private sector' in it's truest form is there to benefit the individual only.

 

PLUS I've already said once on here that those in the private sector should unionise and received a torrent of abuse. Personally I don't see why it is so stupid; you may not have suffered as many job losses.

[Johnny Bognor]

Oh behave: What you've described there is the foundations on which the private sector is built on! "We will provide an inferior product, for as much sodding profit as possible and sod the mug of a consumer who walks through the door." .

 

Actually, most successful companies maximise their profit through providing better products / services and placing the customer first.

 

PLUS I've already said once on here that those in the private sector should unionise and received a torrent of abuse. Personally I don't see why it is so stupid; you may not have suffered as many job losses.

 

So you lack sympathy for them because they aren't in a Union. Most people working in the private sector work for small businesses, where unions are not recognised, so even if people wanted to, they can't. That point aside, there have been tens of thousands of insolvencies and being a member of a union would have made the difference of the square root of **** all.

 

Boss: Sorry Mr worker, we have gone bust and you no longer have a job

Worker: If you go bust, I'll go on strike

 

Sometimes I really don't get this socialism lark. One million private sector works lose their jobs over the last two years and the most we hear is "well they're are not in a Union, so tough ****". Maybe they weren't as lucky as you to get the education/opportunity you had, so they end up on the scrap heap. They are the very people that pay your wages (when they are working), so the least they should get is some sympathy, but it looks like they are on their own.

Edited 26 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor