BBC Parliament

But how much do you actually watch it?

"It's very worthy - but no-one sees it" hardly seems a decent reason. Like I've said, it's not like it's the only platform available for it.

In fairness, when I first heard about it I regarded it as a thing the BBC should be doing, but when I actually got digital and watched it, it was very specialist. It doubt many even interested in politics watch it much at all. Look at these gems from last week:

Adjournment debate:
Romford's new hospital

Adjournment debate:
Closure of GE lights in Leicester

should they really be given bandwidth?!

Adjournment debates are short debates at the end of the parliamentary day which allow MPs to raise important matters in their constituencies on the floor of the house. The subjects may seem parochial but they are important to the people affected.

The whole point of BBC Parliament is that it doesn't cherry-pick the exciting set-piece occasions and it allows people to see there's more to it than Blair and Cameron trading insults at PMQs.

The people who watch it are the sort of people who aren't picked up by audience monitoring. MPs' offices in Westminster tend to have either the news channels or the internal feed from the chamber on, but when they're at home or in their constituencies then they do sometimes use it. (Actually, one of the reasons why the Commons chamber is often so empty is because MPs are able to watch debates they are interested in but don't want to/won't get called to speak in while they are working elsewhere. Surely a better way of them spending their time than sitting around doing nothing.)

As well as schools, students and academics, you'll also find people working for the various charities and pressure groups who have cause to lobby Parliament sometimes tune in while at work. Again, this won't be picked up by audience monitoring. Probably more people watch it than you think.

In any case, it costs a tiny amount to run - something like £2.5m in 1999/2000. That's about a fifth of a Jonathan Ross in today's money, or a couple of hours of drama. The cost of running the feeds from the Commons, Lords, Westminster Hall and select committees is already split between the major broadcasters, so really we're talking about a heavily compressed slot on DTT and a few peanuts. Is it really that much to sacrifice?

You're missing a key principle of good debating. You don't have to subscribe to a view, agree with a standpoint, or watch a channel in order to defend it.

I think it undermines someone's argument that it is important for everyone to have BBC Parliament if they hardly watch it themselves, especially since people tend to be 'into' television on these types of fora.

The fact that MPs and people close to Westminster goings on happen to have the channel on is no surprise but they could easily get the same more specialised coverage on broadband (or Sky if not feasible). Taking up a full screen channel on freeview is a big waste. I still doubt there is or ever will be an audience big enough to justify the existence of this service.

Interesting point about the MPs watching on TV - but they must understand how bad it looks when the House is empty. Alot of people probably think if they're MPs aren't interested in it, why should they be?


Re: audience monitoring - you're clutching at straws now!

And no argument it's cheap - even if it has risen from £2-£2.5m in 2000 it's still costing more than the ITV News Channel did (IIRC - one figure I recall being quoted is £2m).


It's more about space as a whole on Freeview though - yes the shopping channels, Top Up TV, +1 and Quiz channels clog up too much space, but considering the BBC have 1/3 of the total space on Freeview (and 2/3 of the so called Public Service Muxes) there needs to be a strong justification for every channel used.

It also seems unlikely that Freeview will get anymore space - meaning the BBC has four times more gifted* space than it's commercial competitors!

*ITV and C4 have bought more space, but with that still have less than the BBC)

They do (you'll notice there's often a huddle around the despatch boxes, to give the impression there are more people there), but they're damned either way. If they sit there and yell as they do at PMQs they're criticised for behaving like children; if they sit there and fall asleep they look stupid/disinterested. At least if they're not there they might get the benefit of the doubt that they're doing *something* useful. Unlikely, I know.



We'll have to agree to disagree on that one as we can't prove it either way, but I think it's generally accepted that the stats aren't 100% reliable.



Surely there's a better justification for this than some of those channels! As for the argument that it could go on Sky's interactive service or broadband (you can already get it over the web, and - separately - there are multiple streams at http://wwww.parliamentlive.tv), they're not available to everyone. Soon enough Freeview will be, and even if it weren't this is the sort of thing that the BBC should be doing, with the licence fee. Murdoch's got enough control over our democracy as it is without leaving the broadcasting of the mother of all parliaments up to him.



I wonder what proportion of viewers it gets. If only I could be bothered to work it out...



That's not bad for a channel that's hardly promoted.

I think I agree with almost everything you say, except this is a common misquote. The "Mother of Parliaments" refers to England, not the British Parliament. Sorry to be annoying - I know what you meant! I agree it's better in BBC hands!

I think they're one and the same, but I'm not too hot on the history of the union!

Edit: Same building at least. Never mind...

Good stuff !