Liberal Party Just Knocked ....

1984ReturnsForReal_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

Get orf my !!!!in' thread.
Peasants!

Sorry,

I have this inbred urge to tell someone who is being a !!!!!! they are being a !!!!!!.

nickmason

Kohoutek wrote: »

The BBC knows that the Tories will force the BBC to downsize, and they probably realise the Tories want payback for the unfavourable light they were portrayed in during the halcyon days of Blair's premiership.

Sadly I think this is precisely true. I have a number of friends in various parts of the BBC, and they are all very scared that they will lose their jobs under a Conservative Government. They think the situation has been horrendously mismanaged (to be fair, most staff do) by the management - ironic given that the senior management are New Labour placemen.

I don't think most Tories want payback. I think we just want balance.

More generally, I don't know whether it's because I'm just more aware of what's going on, or that the media/political circus is far worse these days, but it is extraordinary how pervasive the New Labour machine became. For instance, Andrew Porter, political editor of the Telegraph, has been surprisingly anti-Conservative; probably because he is extremely well-connected with the New Labour spin doctors. They are his friends, they provide him stories, they poison his views on Conservatives; and all that needs to be sustained if his career is to be sustained under a Labour government.

A whole new cadre of political hacks, who are now more excited by Conservatives than the death throes of Labour, are coming through, and no doubt in a few years time someone will be berating the fact that they are far too chummy with the Tories. But for the time being, they're not the political news makers.

It's just another causative element of the poltical cycle, I guess.

tomterm8

treliac wrote: »

So when is this general election going to be? We all assume 6th May. Why is our esteemed PM delaying an announcement?

Legally, once the queen disolves parliament for an election, a series of laws restraining the press kicks in. It becomes a legal requirement for broadcast media to treat all candidates pretty much equally. Therefore, PM's do not go to the queen until the last minute, since the government generally has the advantage in getting its point accross before the election.

The prime minister can't, by convention, announce the date of election before seeing the queen since, theoretically, the decision to disolve parliament rests in crown priviledge (that is, the queen could tell the PM to FCUK off if she wanted to).

1984ReturnsForReal_2

tomterm8 wrote: »

the queen could tell the PM to FCUK off if she wanted to

Now there is something that nobody should miss.

Graham_Devon

PasturesNew wrote: »

Get orf my !!!!in' thread.
Peasants!

Hey think yourself lucky!

I created a thread which I was pretty darn proud of. Abuse just a quarter of the scale to this and it was gone without a trace! (Chucky basically saying boo to a couple of posters as he does).

And I had something like 13 thanks in the time it was up on the initial post....I was going for a forum record, HMPH!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hey think yourself lucky!

I created a thread which I was pretty darn proud of. Abuse just a quarter of the scale to this and it was gone without a trace! (Chucky basically saying boo to a couple of posters as he does).

And I had something like 13 thanks in the time it was up on the initial post....I was going for a forum record, HMPH!

That was the Nutrisse one....

It went to room 109...

I liked that thread & yes I did thank you..

Graham_Devon

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

That was the Nutrisse one....

It went to room 109...

I liked that thread & yes I did thank you..

Is that room accesible!?

Spartacus_Mills

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Sorry,

I have this inbred urge

<Snigger>

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

to tell someone who is being a !!!!!! they are being a !!!!!!.

Odd, as you seem to be projecting your own behaviour onto others, then articulating your own shortcomings in how you see them in others.

You are a real keyboard warrior. You just seem very angry and very keen to insult people who do not agree with your rather jaundiced view of the world. Why not attempt to disagree agreeably.

Still if you want to be a foul mouthed keyboard warrior then keep at it tiger.



Grrrrrrr

ninky_2

nickmason wrote: »

Sadly I think this is precisely true. I have a number of friends in various parts of the BBC, and they are all very scared that they will lose their jobs under a Conservative Government. They think the situation has been horrendously mismanaged (to be fair, most staff do) by the management - ironic given that the senior management are New Labour placemen.

I don't think most Tories want payback. I think we just want balance.

More generally, I don't know whether it's because I'm just more aware of what's going on, or that the media/political circus is far worse these days, but it is extraordinary how pervasive the New Labour machine became. For instance, Andrew Porter, political editor of the Telegraph, has been surprisingly anti-Conservative; probably because he is extremely well-connected with the New Labour spin doctors. They are his friends, they provide him stories, they poison his views on Conservatives; and all that needs to be sustained if his career is to be sustained under a Labour government.

A whole new cadre of political hacks, who are now more excited by Conservatives than the death throes of Labour, are coming through, and no doubt in a few years time someone will be berating the fact that they are far too chummy with the Tories. But for the time being, they're not the political news makers.

It's just another causative element of the poltical cycle, I guess.

the bbc provides balance. given that the commercial channels are biased towards the wants and needs of private capital they are unlikely to run stories that criticise it. can you see itv coming up with a show like 'watchdog' which critises potential advertisers? or even documentaries or subjects that are less populist and saleable to advertisers but are important for people to know about?

a society where all our news is paid for by private capital would be a very scary one indeed. i know for example that programmes i make in for independent channels tend to be extremely saccharine in terms of challenge to the status quo or rocking the boat of companies. i've had items pulled because they might upset food companies or pharmaceutical companies. commerical channels are ever more hungry for advertiser funded content which means the editorial sensitivities are only going to increase. we need a publically funded broadcaster.

nickmason

ninky wrote: »

the bbc provides balance. given that the commercial channels are biased towards the wants and needs of private capital they are unlikely to run stories that criticise it. can you see itv coming up with a show like 'watchdog' which critises potential advertisers? or even documentaries or subjects that are less populist and saleable to advertisers but are important for people to know about?

a society where all our news is paid for by private capital would be a very scary one indeed. i know for example that programmes i make in for independent channels tend to be extremely saccharine in terms of challenge to the status quo or rocking the boat of companies. i've had items pulled because they might upset food companies or pharmaceutical companies. commerical channels are ever more hungry for advertiser funded content which means the editorial sensitivities are only going to increase. we need a publically funded broadcaster.

I agree with all of that - I'm not one of the ultra-free-market folk who thinks that even the BBC can be "regularised" by free market forces. I think it has a role, and it does it very well the vast majority of the time.
If I do grouch, it's on two counts:
1) Infatuation with big names and cheapening stories. Why, oh why, for example, is Panorama fronted by Jeremy Vine?
2) The BBC has become excessively politicised (harking back at least to the whole David Kelly affair), and it does seem to run a political bias against the Conservatives. As I mentioned, I actually think this is a combination of market forces - effectively a product of it being easier to get good stories from the government spin machine - and a paranoia about Conservative response. I would rather it were not so.