It's a bit like opting out of taxation, isn't it? Like saying you don't want to fund a public library because you get all your books from Amazon, or that you don't want to pay for the NHS because you have private health insurance, or that you don't want to contribute to state education because your sprogs are in private school. Why is this so hard to understand?
This is just so simplistic. Do left wing people just want welfare, the public sector and power for the union barons ?
I don't know. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to the right-wing view is regarded as a left-wing luvvie. I don't consider myself as either. I'm just highly sceptical of power and corporate interests and believe that government has a role is curbing the power of money.
I don't see how it has a political bias. They gave plenty of shit to the Labour representative on Newsnight yesterday, banging on about how Milliband is rubbish and his party faithful hate him. Whether or not you agree with the sentiment, it was hardly easy on Labour.
it is nothing of the sort like that. it is ran like a business where 'stars' are paid millions. its non essential and a quango
I'm left but I do understand the need for temperence at times. This is what destroyed the unions and make those current ones look foolish sometimes. Their inability to look out the window and see whats happening. Sometimes we have to tighten our belts. However this needs to be carried out without lining the pockets of the already wealthy. This simply isn't happening. People are getting rich at the expense of the poor. Cuts everywhere, yet the cronies multiply. People are obsessed with money. I'm as guilty too as the next man. So I am posting a picture of a man laughing to cheer the thread up.
They are paid that much because all sorts of licence-fee payers want to see "stars" and if they didn't, they'd be on another channel, and then the licence-fee payers would complain. Even more.
The left is not Labour, being tough on Labour, and let's face it they deserve it, is not being tough on the left.
Unfortunately I have seen foreign TV and agree that money isn't everything, so let the luvies run their TV channel not for profit.
"Labour" or, more correctly "New Labour" as they now call themselves, gave up any right to be associated with left-wing thinking or any kind of socialist values ( as well as any credibility ) when they ditched Clause Four of their constitution - ie the actual part of it that made them socialists - in a pathetic attempt to remain in power by appealing to the middle-ground. My original comment about the BBC was that it was run by "champagne socialists" and I stand by that. The sort of "luvvies" who believe in socialist values right up to the point where it involves them not having extremely well paid, and totally unaccountable, jobs. The BBC bosses are, and pretty much always have been, free to create a left wing bias in their programming whilst being paid large amounts of money from what is effectively a tax on television ownership. Personally I do not see the BBC producing any better television than the other TV companies. The dire drivel that is Eastenders, or constant re-runs of Dad's Army do not justify the licence fee - and look for yourself to see how much of their daily programming is actually repeats ( well over 50% of the day's programmes on BBC1 and BBC2 yesterday ). Their own satellite channels already carry advertising - so why not extend that to the terrestrial channels ? Oh, and by the way, over the last few years a large chuck of the licence fee was spent on the BBC developing digital television infrastructure not on making programmes, quality or otherwise - hence the large number of repeats.
Only the BBC could provide BBC6. Quite possible the greatest radio station ever. I hear your grumblings but tbh I honestly think your talking complete crock. There is a lingering undertone of right wing vs left wing politics in it all, which frankly is an argument no one will win. Thus Ive ordered a set of these and will only say ner ner ner ner ner ner mister...
