The Tories are claiming that they would cut the licence fee in half to £58 and restrict the BBC to Public Service Broadcasting, stopping them chasing ratings with soaps and game shows.
Now, I'm not completely certain of the definition of Public Service Broadcasting, but if that means the BBC only offers news, educational programmes - and possibly certain sports event - I think it would be even worse value for money than it is now!
A clearer definition of Public Service Broadcasting would be appreciated.
You're watching public service BBC, now in the second part of our fantastic trilogy we look at the history of the Conservative Party and then it's our primetime evening movie... a profile of Iain Duncan Smith...entitled "My sucesses as a quiet man"
Thing is as the official name suggests the Tories are stuck in a happy era where the BBC provided minimal non-threatening programming for that happy family stuck by the fire watching B/W, they really haven't copped on to the fact that television/radio has evolved and needs to appeal in different ways. Besides it'll never happen.
A clearer definition of Public Service Broadcasting would be appreciated.
I would suggest that a defintion for such a thing would be anything which does NOT diminish the viewing audience of commercial stations, and thereby reduce the profits which they make from the sale of advertizing revenue.
In other words, the BBC should only be allowed to make unpopular programs which no commercial tv station would every dare to produce by nature of its lack of profitability.
Such a definition, would I hope, be soundly endorsed by the Conservative Party and their friends and donors in the commercial television industry.
Blah blah blah. Do the Tories have any other policies? For the last few weeks, all I've heard are arguments against the BBC, and various refinements on plans to get rid of it entirely, unsubtly moulded to "we'll get rid of BBC THREE and BBCi", and now we're down to "we'll chop the licence fee in half, and force the BBC to make crap that no-one wants".
Literally the only other thing I've heard about the Conservative Party since July is Iain Duncan Smith's recent attempts to put some kind of positive spin on their laughable performance at Brent East, and a couple of Lords commenting on the death of the Leader of the House.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the BBC shouldn't really be empire building in the way that it has been, and I also concur that it has been a law unto itself for too long, and should be subject to greater scrutiny (maybe that means supervision by OFCOM, perhaps it just means better internal governance), but the way the Tories keep going on about it, you'd think it was all that mattered to the British people. Ultimately, the licence fee is less than £10 a month. I think realistically, the 'average' person would be far more impressed with promises to reduce tax on petrol, lower council taxes, improve spending on public services etc than a thoroughly pointless commitment to save them £58 a year.
oh this is pathetic. It's just IDS trying to look hard and we all know the only person who is hard in govt is our wonderful home secretary David "I'm hard me" Blunkett.
I'm sure ITV will be giving the tories a nice donation this year!
I just want to see the reaction from the 13m eastenders Viewers, 8m Casualty and Holby viewers and the millions of viewers of comedy, drama, quiz shows and nature programs which will be replaced by a combination of BBC Four and News 24. What fun.
Its these sorts of 'groundbreaking' policies that brought the tories there huge election success in Brent East (beated by by Lib Dems and Labour, vote share down and placed in distant third!)
Perhaps this idea by the tories is a little half baked, but something needs to be done about the BBC.
For instance, the website costs over £70 million a year to maintain.
All these fame academy type shows are already catered for by commercial broadcasters (and more successfully)
Radio stations for blacks, gays and one-eyed lesbians need to be consolodated - i would imagine that some of their digital only radio stations have only a handful of listeners, if that.
If you want to argue that the BBC should be providing services for the minority, then why do they insist on ruining the schedules with sports, when there is a minority of people who don't want to watch it?
For instance, the website costs over £70 million a year to maintain.
What's wrong with that?
A huge proportion of the population use it!
Much of the content is already available elsewhere anyway. I'm sure with £70 million extra the BBC could set up another digital radio station for Asians living in Bradford with errection problems or something equally useful.
How much do all these pointless radio stations cost the TV Licence Tax Payer, anyway?