Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders: No Australia Don't Have A Deal

981 replies

RedToothBrush · 04/02/2020 16:47

Since Friday, far from letting things calm down, Johnson has doubled down stating that if we can't have a Canada Deal (which the EU says wouldn't be equal because we are much closer than Canada geographically) we will go for an Australia Deal.

This is the latest rehash of a managed no deal package up as something else which the EU have already repeatedly said no to.

So we are on track for no deal.

At the same time Johnson has got very excited about American food and how its great. Almost as if he wants no deal wit the EU to force a shitty bad deal with the us through.

Johnson and his chronies have also been trying to undermine journalistic transparency by blocking access to the lobby to some media outlets in a move that makes us look like a tinpot dictatorship. Fortunately there was a mass walk out of journalists but it remains to be seen how long that can be maintained.

Far from being a clean slate to move forward from its already proving that nothing has changed and old divisions are as deep as ever, if not worse...

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
bluehighlighter · 17/02/2020 00:06

Dominic Cummings’ think tank called for ‘end of BBC in current form’ and creation of Fox News equivalent in UK
New Frontiers Foundation blog described public broadcaster as ‘mortal enemy’, internet archive reveals

malylis · 17/02/2020 00:08

"when services like health and education are on their knees" .

Right cause the money from the licence would make any difference to health and education? Its less that 10 percent of the schools budget and about 2 of the health.

The reason these things are on their knees are because of the people you are championing in your culture war.

The unfair burden on the poor is a ridiculous argument to make as previously identified.

bluehighlighter · 17/02/2020 00:10

You're playing into Cummings' hands, BCF.

DrBlackbird · 17/02/2020 00:14

It's been criticised by the right as well as the left. Yes, probably a lot of the staff are Tories and it was depressing having Sarah Sands as the Today editor but it - at least - has to have a policy of objective reporting even if that's not always the reality. Still, it is more independent than the others. It is absolutely a huge loss with immense repercussions for independent reporting in this country. Why else does Johnson want it eviscerated?? It's not for any of our betterment. Another nail in the coffin of civil society.

BigChocFrenzy · 17/02/2020 00:16

Oh, that BBC thread was August 2015, but here are a couple of my posts opposing the licence fee and its unfairness - long before Brexit:

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/a2458589-To-think-the-BBC-license-fee-should-be-scrapped?msgid=563606444_
_
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amm_ibeingg_unreasonable/a2458589-To-think-the-BBC-license-fee-should-be-scrapped?msgid=56360644

BigChocFrenzy · 17/02/2020 00:19

It is an unfair burden on the poor when you take away their choice to pay it

As I posted, when I was poor, it stopped me getting a TV for years, so I had to wait until I was 28 and could safely budget for the licence
I wanted the choice before then to have the free channels, but I wasn't allowed to

BigChocFrenzy · 17/02/2020 00:25

Defeating Cummings & co will never be achieved by making poorer people pay for things they don't want or need

  • and they should be allowed to decide if they "need" a public broadcaster

Think about why Labour lost so many wc voters to the Tories
Telling people you know better than they do what's good for them was probably a big part of it

A big part of the culture war

malylis · 17/02/2020 00:29

The criticisms of the right are usually fatuous when it comes to the BBC and bias. Look at the number of staff who were pro brexit/ pro Tory. At times Paxman, Cohen, Neil, Kussenburg and others have been accused of bias or have been shown to have political affiliation with the Tories.

Not saying that the left's ideas are right either.

In the end the bias accusations go back to making a powerful majority feel like they are an oppressed minority, stirs up anger, and allows the politicians they vote for to do as they please.

This of course is why Cameron lost the referendum, you can't spend 5 years blaming immigration and the EU for the faults of the nation, and use it to excuse swathing cuts, and then expect that anger not to be put to use at a vote.

malylis · 17/02/2020 00:33

Labour lost working class voters to the tories because of Brexit. Almost all of the areas lost show half the % vote change went to the Brexit party and half to the tories.

No other reason, you and your culture war buddies need to stop being revisionist

BigChocFrenzy · 17/02/2020 00:35

When I was a young adult (dinosaurs roamed across London) & poor, the BBC was rigorously neutral
and had some magnificent political presenters - remember Robin Day ? - programs & journalists

However, I didn't need a superb broadcaster;
I needed more money and I wanted to be able to watch the other channels on the telly which were free
instead of always having to watch at a friend's home.

malylis · 17/02/2020 00:38

Personalising again.

Tbh without the licence fee you wouldn't have had your free TV cause it was the licence fee that paid for the broadcasting network across the UK.

Can't see little old ITV paying to put it in and maintain it.

malylis · 17/02/2020 00:39

Oh and without the fee kiss goodbye to freeview (maintained after ITV digital collapsed as free to air and recieve with digital switch over subsidised by.....)

mathanxiety · 17/02/2020 00:40

Sky and C4 are better for news & current affairs than the Beeb

That's until they are faced with competition from Fox. Fox isn't just a broadcaster, it's a business. It's not run as a public service. Its aim is to make money. It will do its utmost to divert revenue from Sky and C4, and both will have to adapt to the Fox schema or die.
niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/
'The Transformation of Network News' programmes into money makers, and the implications for the UK if Dominic Cummings vision becomes reality. ^^

Today, ABC, CBS and NBC operate in a competitive environment in which most viewers have dozens of channels from which to choose. That has transformed not just TV news but the entire television industry. Those most severely threatened by the way the broadcast business operates are the Big Three. The ABC and CBS networks (now subsumed into larger corporate structures) are losing money, according to Wall Street analysts. NBC’s network profits are also falling sharply. Those who own these networks—Disney (ABC), CBS Inc. with its major stockholder, Mel Karmazin, and General Electric (NBC)—all demand that their news operations make money.

This demand for profit arises not because these owners are greedier than their predecessors were, but because the financial challenges they face are tougher. The TV entertainment business, in particular, has deteriorated because programming costs are rising while, due to more competition, ratings are falling and hit shows are harder to find. All of this leaves the TV entertainment business struggling to find its way. The networks’ entertainment and sports operations are so troubled that news, particularly in prime time, is becoming one of the networks’ most consistently profitable businesses. To some extent, news programs are now looked to as ways to subsidize entertainment and sports offerings—just the reverse of the way things used to be.

The formula for making network news into a profitable business was .... established:

  • Make the product more entertaining. As Hewitt proved with “60 Minutes,” when you tell stories in ways that engage the audience, often by touching their emotions, news programming can generate high ratings and revenues.
  • Produce more programming. As Arledge established, in business terms a network news operation can be seen as a factory with a lot of fixed costs: bureaus, studios, equipment, correspondents, producers, editors, executives and network overhead. The more programs that the factory can churn out, the more revenues can be generated to recoup these set costs. Once those fixed costs have been paid for, the marginal costs of producing more hours become relatively low.
  • Control spending. Wright, Tisch and Capital Cities did this, and today’s owners are continuing to do it. The networks have, among other things, closed foreign and domestic bureaus, laid off staff, eliminated some money-losing documentary units, and curbed convention and election coverage.

Note 'news' is called 'product'.

The war in Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 exemplifies some of the problems that accompany these new approaches to network news coverage. No network had been covering the emerging crisis in Kosovo on an ongoing basis. Few reporters knew Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, knew much about the tensions fueling the crisis, or had established sources in the region. Even the best correspondents covering the NATO bombing and the mass eviction of Albanians were new to this story. When the Pentagon and the Serbs both clamped down on information, many in the press were largely unprepared to cover aspects of this story and, as a consequence, many critics felt the public was ill served.

The Emergence of Newsmagazines
Compared with hard news—expensive to cover and limited in the return it can deliver—the economics of primetime newsmagazines are very attractive. They don’t require bureaus with people stationed around the world. Typically, they rely on their own staffs of producers and correspondents to cover stories that they decide when, where and how to do. Controlling costs becomes easier. Executives in charge of newsmagazines can opt not to cover a complicated high-cost story, or they can decide to keep staff closer to home rather than pay for expensive travel. Unlike the daily news programs, newsmagazines do joint ventures and piggyback onto coverage generated by others. For example, NBC’s “Dateline” does projects with People and In Style magazines, Court TV and the Discovery Channel, among others, all of which save money.

You shouldn't assume that the viewing public will always and forevermore be able to tell the difference between news and entertainment, or care when lines are blurred, or care when the dictates of sponsors find a way to influence the slant of a news broadcast or even what is considered news in the first place.

What you need is a far better BBC, and funding from taxes. The NHS also needs funding from taxes. Something has to give here - there has to be an acknowledgement that valued services need to be paid for. And above all, money that is taken abroad has to be found and taxed.

mathanxiety · 17/02/2020 00:42

And please note, the above article was written before the FOX era.

BigChocFrenzy · 17/02/2020 00:53

Labour lost working class votes because many decided labour no longer speaks for them,
but for a privileged -and snooty - elite who don't listen to what they want.

This is a common theme in the West, from the Uk to the USA and across Europe, so not just Brexit.
And it is a culture war, but fuelled largely by economic dislocation - the costs of globalisation & automation falling mostly on the wc, while the benefits are mostly gained by the upper 10%

The Tories were able to demonise the EU as a mc elite project, which is what made the Brexit vote possible

The votes were lost because of Corbyn and because of Brexit - but the latter was because of the culture war that Brexit highlighted
There are many other issues Labour have still to tackle

As an illustration, "woke" is now the insult of choice, including on MN, for way more than having Remain views

Labour are toast until they reconnect with their former wc voters - which means listening to them

Changing age demographics might rescue Labour - eventually - but look how the turning point age fell from 47 in 2017 to about 38

The Tories managed to blame the 2007/8 GFC on Labour, so even if Brexit hammers the economy, it's quite likely they'll escape most of the blame

malylis · 17/02/2020 01:02

What a crock.

Labour lost in leave voting areas because of brexit.

"The snooty elite " you mean like Trump and Boris who have done exactly what I said. Made a powerful majority feel like a oppressed minority? with the help of mogul owned media, and managed get them to vote for them through this?

The policies that are being put in by those the WC in these areas voted for are benefiting them completely aren't they? Ooops nope, no bounce i jobs in depressed areas of the US or UK since 2016, in fact its got worse.

You can go find what Boris et al think of the working class (just look what one of their advisors was saying today), but its the liberals who are snooty?

Brexit is going to damage those areas that voted for it most, Trump's killing off of Obamacare, cuts to Medicaid and tax changes hit the poor worst.

Yet you all lap it up and blame the otherside like an abusive spouse, look what you made me do.

BigChocFrenzy · 17/02/2020 01:04

Income tax would at least be fairer, rather than a flat tax,
if broadcasting is indeed judged as an essential public service

However, with people so unwilling to pay higher taxes - and wanting cuts instead - I suspect many voters would prefer the money went to essential services

The BBC gets nearly 4 billion quid from the licence fee,
which to put in perspective is nearly half the net cost of UK contributions to the EU !

So I don't think it's good value for taxpayer's money, given the financial constraints on the public purse.

malylis · 17/02/2020 01:05

"Which means listening to them".

If people are scared of the boogieman and aren't willing to admit he doesn't exist, then there isn't much someone who lives in the real world can do for them.

BigChocFrenzy · 17/02/2020 01:16

Brexit happened because of the culture war

I see some in Labour just think they have to sit tight, keep lecturing everyone about how ridiculous they are not to agree with Labour policies and they'll win the GE as soon as Brexit dies down.

The right have been able to win wc votes from the left across the West,
because they have convinced many voters that the left & centre are snooty elitists who don't have the same interests as ordinary people.

Brexit is only an issue in the UK - it doesn't explain the rise of the hard right in the rest of the West

Of course the right are the worst kind of elitists, out to make the rich even richer,
but they don't let their contempt show through as often as some on the left do

So the right have won the propoganda war in the UK, without ever needing Fox News

BigChocFrenzy · 17/02/2020 01:24

Labour didn't listen to ordinary voters kept telling them they wouldn't vote Labour as long as Corbyn was leader
That worked well

No he wasn't the bogeyman, but he was totally unfit to be leader of a major party and had some very nasty friends
So many canvassers reporting he was toxic on the doorstep

malylis · 17/02/2020 01:27

They've been able to do that through mogul owned media which discourages critical thinking

They show their contempt all the time, publish it in the press, on twitter, they talk about it a lot.

But because they pander to the most base prejudices they appeal to a certain demographic.

Exactly how I said they did, make this demographic feel like they are being oppressed.

Without ever needing fox news, but whilst dominating the media, and screaming about being oppressed.

Labour's actual policies were massively beneficial to the WC, but again, appealing to base prejudices wins the day.

malylis · 17/02/2020 01:30

See again that's revisionist about Corbyn, the same people voted for him in 2017.

Why was Corbyn toxic on the doorstep? Oooh could it be the media again?

Nasty friends don't appear to stop the hard right does it? Sterilising working class girls to prevent an underclass? Hanging out with antisemites and bigots. Those who fund terrorism, doesn't seem to be a problem.

OP posts:
mrslaughan · 17/02/2020 08:13

Can I just say - thank you for the debate on the BBC. I was rather ho-hum about the licensing fee..... but now think it would be terrible if we lost it as an institution. No - I don't look to it for news, but there is a huge amount of other content that is of significant value.

DrBlackbird · 17/02/2020 08:15

Paying £4b for a vitally important role in maintaining some semblance of democracy (however imperfect) is value for money. That pales against the stupidity of paying £110b for a 30 min faster journey from B'ham to London....