The Labour Thread sponsored by Ninetendo

■■■■■■■■

  • •••••

  • 《《《《♤■

  • ■■■■■■■♤♡◇♧♡♤♤■□●●○○•°`~\|<■□♤♤♤>|\○○●□■《《¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤○○○○○●●●●●●●●●□□□□■■■■■■♤♤■■■■♤♤■♤♤♤■♤■■>>■>

  • Nintendio

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6


Results are only viewable after voting.

Fompous Part

Erstwhile Scumbag
Messages
108
Likes
68
Location
Britain
Supports
Fulchester
This is a man who stood for election proposing to put Diane Abbott in charge of the Police and MI5, and STILL won over 40% of the vote. He can propose pretty much any daft bugger idea he likes.
 
Messages
4,242
Likes
1,722
Location
Buckhurst Hill
Supports
Leyton Orient
Not the antisemitism then?
I've only read about the Labour manifesto anti-Semitism thing adoption of rules or whatever it is, totally overblown scandal imo. I've not really looked into the other stuff, there's probably an element behind it. Either way, yeah it harms public opinion with the Labour party. Doesn't mean policies such as the above don't come across as ridiculous. Labour need to be a lot more pragmatic.

This is a man who stood for election proposing to put Diane Abbott in charge of the Police and MI5, and STILL won over 40% of the vote. He can propose pretty much any daft bugger idea he likes.
Surely this is a reflection of how British politics currently is?
 

Ebeneezer Goode

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,439
Likes
1,509
Supports
England
Is there a solid ethical argument for keeping the BBC around at all, much less expanding it? The TV license is a completely unnecessary regressive tax if ever there was one. We don't need a state television network, and a government controlled social media platform is a fucking Orwellian nightmare waiting to happen.
 
Messages
1,772
Likes
1,715
Location
Guildford, Surrey
Supports
mighty, mighty Ks
Meanwhile the other media outlets not subject to a "regressive tax" operate JUST PERFECTLY

Dunno if the solutions are good ones but Corbyn's right to open up a conversation about the media landscape in this country. Frankly, it's well overdue.
 

Jockney

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,836
Likes
1,513
Supports
Fred Onyedinma
It's this sorta shit that turns people off of Labour.
I was skeptical, but then I read the speech:

"A BDC could develop new technology for online decision making and audience-led commissioning of programmes and even a public social media platform with real privacy and public control over the data that is making Facebook and others so rich," he said at the Edinburgh TV Festival's Alternative MacTaggart Lecture.

"It could become the access point for public knowledge, information and content currently held in the BBC archives, the British Library and the British Museum.

"Imagine an expanded iPlayer giving universal access to licence fee payers for a product that could rival Netflix and Amazon. It would probably sell pretty well overseas as well."

This doesn't sound ridiculous, or dystopian. These are fairly moderate reforms that go at least a little way to confronting the problems of Big Data and the Google-Facebook duopoly while providing a path to potential common ownership of media. It's giving people a stake in the news and programming that is produced; the possible democratisation of entire industries which have thus far been absolutely unaccountable to the public. It's a political issue that is incredibly salient for most people.


"
 
Messages
1,772
Likes
1,715
Location
Guildford, Surrey
Supports
mighty, mighty Ks
No, just that some of us understand the value of public service broadcasting and would conclude that the UK media landscape would be a lot poorer without the BBC, despite its flaws. It's a tenner a month. That's less than all of the following that I, and many other people pay, without a second thought: energy, water, trade union membership, a return train ticket to London, a couple of pints, line rental, broadband, any other tv subscription package, a phone contract. It's very good value indeed for a service the vast majority of the population use on a regular or semi-regular basis.
 

Ebeneezer Goode

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,439
Likes
1,509
Supports
England
No, just that some of us understand the value of public sector broadcasting and would conclude that the UK media landscape would be a lot poorer without the BBC, despite its flaws. It's a tenner a month. That's less than all of the following that I, and many other people pay, without a second thought: energy, water, trade union membership, a return train ticket to London, a couple of pints, line rental, broadband, any other tv subscription package, a phone contract. It's very good value indeed for a service the vast majority of the population use on a regular or semi-regular basis.
Ignoring the fact that none of that has anything to do with what you initially said, if the service is so great and the price so cheap then it would comfortably survive as a subscription service in the private sector, no? Why force the poorest households to fund the BBC just so they can legally use a TV? It's unconscionable.
 
Messages
1,772
Likes
1,715
Location
Guildford, Surrey
Supports
mighty, mighty Ks
Doesn't it? My point didn't really extent any further than it's a small price to pay for decent programming in a media environment where the printed press are toxic and the rest of the broadcast media is not of comparable quality.

Done this whole topic before tbh. Lots of reasons which I suppose I'll regurgitate again. High transitional costs, rising operating costs (eg huge spend on marketing in order to retain subscribers), a smaller subscriber base, the need to maximise revenue would all mean that the BBC would likely have to charge significantly more for the same services, rendering it less affordable and potentially pricing some people out altogether. It's also likely that the output would become gradually less diverse as the focus would move to catering to those who were prepared to pay, rather than the provision of a public service.

Most subscription channels in the UK offer quite specialist programming. There's little original, home produced content. So imposing such a model on a broadcaster with a unique remit, such as the BBC, does not to me seem desirable. Yes, it is a regressive tax and an imperfect funding model, but it's perhaps the best available one.
 

Fompous Part

Erstwhile Scumbag
Messages
108
Likes
68
Location
Britain
Supports
Fulchester
Is it weird and paradoxical that I agree fully with both Tup and Scumbag?
I’m not sure what I have to do with it…

FWIW, I dislike the license fee because I think the BBC’s N&CA folk are mostly a bunch of muesli-munching Guardianista types who are intuitively hostile to various social, political and cultural ideas that I favour, and I rather resent having to fund their existence (under threat of prosecution) if I want to watch repeats of Man vs. Food or the occasional decent film on Film 4.

A very political reason, then, but I suspect the same is true for those who defend it.
 
Messages
1,772
Likes
1,715
Location
Guildford, Surrey
Supports
mighty, mighty Ks
Quite.

I think there are some justifiable criticisms to be made of the way Labour have dealt with the whole anti-semitism storm, but the idea that Field is resigning on some high-minded point of principle is laughable, frankly. He's closer to the Tories in many respects and was finally on the way to being turfed out.
 

Soup Ladle

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,079
Likes
492
Supports
Hartlepool
Lots of talk about the IHRA and adopting the definition of antisemitism. I agree with the statement but if you go to their website and check the examples, it could curtail freedom of expression about Israel and its disgusting policies against the Palestinians
 

Ebeneezer Goode

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,439
Likes
1,509
Supports
England
It's not really a free speech issue because it's not imposed by the state, but it's a nonsense that they should be expected to adopt it. They have no need of an internationalist organization trying to dictate to them what anti-Semitism is. Buckling now makes them look weak.
 

Soup Ladle

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,079
Likes
492
Supports
Hartlepool
It's not really a free speech issue because it's not imposed by the state, but it's a nonsense that they should be expected to adopt it. They have no need of an internationalist organization trying to dictate to them what anti-Semitism is. Buckling now makes them look weak.
The problem comes when someone starts legitmately slating Israel say on the radio or whatever and the opponent can then just use the IHRA thing and call someone antisemitic. Is it possible that this could be adopted on a state level? If so, I can see lots of repercussions.
 

Ebeneezer Goode

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,439
Likes
1,509
Supports
England
I think that particular horse has already bolted. We already have laws on the books that make it illegal to send "offensive" content electronically (with an exception for TV) so freedom of expression has been on it's arse in this country for a long time. The creepiest part is that these laws are only enforced selectively and incrementally, like we're the proverbial frog in boiling water.
 

Jockney

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,836
Likes
1,513
Supports
Fred Onyedinma
Despite the NEC’s submission on the IHRA code (and it really was submission — a depressing demonstration of weakness, under very little pressure), I think the Labour Left has come out of the saga in a position of real strength. Agitators on the right of the PLP, long distrusted in their CLPs, have clearly overplayed their hand. It’s clear that there was expectation of a new centrist party this Summer, but the anti-semitism scandal failing to resonate with the electorate has stopped it in its tracks. It’s hard to see where anti-Corbyn MPs go from here, with no consensus on any single issue that resonates with voters, no clear constituency within the membership and no appetite on the ground for a new party. Worse for them: the left now have almost complete control over the NEC and will be able to push through a mandatory selection procedure, either at Conference later this month, and if not then then certainly in the next few years.

Say a prayer for the good folks at Progress HQ...
 

Forum statistics

Threads
13,435
Messages
791,881
Members
4,467
Latest member
Mofo