Politics Thread!

[zip accident]

The Dukes of Hazzard will be a different show now.

Life imitates art, again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33393860

[pogo]

Not to be outdone by IDS it's now Osborne's turn
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... ge-osborne

They had little choice as it was in their manifesto. It’s a stupid policy: the threshold is already too high and the arguments are stronger for lowering it. But it is funded; they are paying for it by pension cutting tax relief for the highest paid. A very odd policy, transferring money from one bunch of rich people to another bunch.

Except it makes sense politically. the people hit by the pension changes, mostly city types, are hardly a sympathetic bunch. But rich dead people are, or at least their suddenly wealthy offspring. Against all reason raising the inheritance tax threshold is popular even though hardly anyone will benefit; already only a small percentage of estates are liable. It will be an even smaller percent after this change.

[VNVObit]

They didn't have to have it their manifesto in the first place. As for inheritance tax, it sits oddly with a £12bn cut for the poorest

[gravy]

Going to be kick in the balls for the housing market, less sell pressure for old people now if they're sure they can hand down their properties unemcumbered by inheritance tax.

[(o)(o)]

They didn't have to have it their manifesto in the first place.

Yeah but once it's in the manifesto remember the golden rule applies :
A Conservative manifesto pledge may NEVER be broken.

As for inheritance tax, it sits oddly with a £12bn cut for the poorest

Miliband was going to blow the money on 'students' : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75181.html

So, great, they've removed any relativity measure for poverty. That's right because there is no moral difference between a child whether it's living in a nation of abundance like England or desolate Africa. They both have the same basic needs. Actually an English child in poverty is probably more aspiration because theres more to aspire for.

Basically it needs food and that's about it however many calories I don't know the precise number work it out yourself. A British child claiming to be in poverty demanding to wear clothes (probably the latest trainers!) is an embarrassment given that African children have proven time and time again that with determination, one can go without. Another vindication of the removal of the welfare nanny scrounger state.

Absolutely parents who are working cannot house poor children - those who craftily top up their wages by stocking up at food banks are obviously wasting money on cigarettes, booze and crisps, fags and booze. These are bad families and the Tories are therefore correct in saying they should not be counted and counting them is an administrative burden on decent hardworking taxpayers.

[pogo]

Going to be kick in the balls for the housing market, less sell pressure for old people now if they're sure they can hand down their properties unemcumbered by inheritance tax.

Not really. The number affected is very small and it doesn’t change the underlying dynamic of the housing market of supply and demand. It’s disappointing that rather than address the housing market the Tories are simply reacting to it, again. Not that the previous Labour government was any better.

I wonder if it’s a consequence of our demographic trends. We have more and more old people, who tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers than any other age group. What’s important to them? Pensions, so we have the triple lock. House values, so we have nimby planning policies. And obviously inheritance tax, which resonates very well with both aspirational voters and elderly ones.

[gravy]

Yeah really.

Anyway, looks like you're getting your wish; it's looking likely you're going to go from not having to pay for a license fee or usage of iPlayer to having to pay for it.

What a load of shit, Osborne's posturing is we'll pay fund the deficit by cutting the BBC.

Doesn't matter that in the scheme of things that will make fuck all difference because again it's about headline grabbing dog whistle ideology of no practical use at all.

[pogo]

Anyway, looks like you're getting your wish; it's looking likely you're going to go from not having to pay for a license fee or usage of iPlayer to having to pay for it.

It would make more sense, to move from a tax on all TV watching to more directly relating it to watching BBC content. Not sure it will raise much money; I imagine people like me who now dip into the BBC via iPlayer will mostly find other things to watch, unless they radically change the payment model.

[gravy]

Certainly makes sense if you're well aware that having Murdoch on your side is an enormous boon to any future PM ambitions.



"That'll teach them!"
"Yeah I know right?"

[pogo]

Certainly makes sense if you're well aware that having Murdoch on your side is an enormous boon to any future PM ambitions.

Maybe a decade ago, when Sky was the main alternative to free to air broadcasting. But it’s not any more, it’s just one more content aggregator.

Had an odd conversation this week. Rang BT to cancel our BT Sport subscription. It was not anything we ever signed up to, it just came free with the broadband. Never used it and had largely forgotten about it, until I read the news it was being changed from free to £5 a month. So rang to cancel it.

So you can watch Champions League on BT Sport this season. If you like instead films many of them are released simultaneously in cinemas and online in e.g. iTunes. Or if you prefer TV series more and more are appearing on online-only services like Netflix, Amazon, HBO Now, including more and more original content, as well as also in iTunes. And that’s not including all the content you can watch for free, on YouTube or on many other sites and services, which if anything is growing faster. I could watch eight hours a day of the free HD TV programmes that appear in my YouTube subscriptions.

[VNVObit]

Certainly makes sense if you're well aware that having Murdoch on your side is an enormous boon to any future PM ambitions.

Maybe a decade ago, when Sky was the main alternative to free to air broadcasting. But it’s not any more, it’s just one more content aggregator.

A very powerful and influential one or do you think he has less power/influence than freeview?

in any event if you watched the interview he made a number of veiled threats regarding what he viewed as BBC encroaching on Newspaper territory. Suspect BBC news will get a kicking as well as anything that potentially could be done elsewhere under the guise it's interfering with Murdoch/Market (delete as appropriate to your delusion) approach to selling advertising (which is where newspapers actually make their money)

[pogo]

A very powerful and influential one or do you think he has less power/influence than freeview?

He has a lot less influence than he once had, after the NOTW hacking scandal. He is also himself withdrawing from having an active role in his business, stepping down as head of Fox in the US, with his son James taking over. He’s 84, hardly an age to be making backroom deals with politicians.

But it’s more that it isn’t just Sky vs. the BBC any more. A decade or more ago the BBC was funded by the license fee and Sky by subscription and that was it, for British TV funding. Yes, ITV etc. were funded by adverts but you also needed to pay the license fee to watch them. Ending the license fee, so the BBC had to compete head on with Sky for subscription fees, would have suited Sky very well.

But there are so more ways to pay for TV now: BT, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Vimeo, HBO Now, YouTube, plus many more national and regional broadcasters that have gone online. There is probably even more free content, much of it high quality, such as top programmes and broadcasts from other countries.

Sky hasn’t had to do anything to make the BBC less important. It has happened anyway. They have many more competitors, including some that compete directly with its subscription-based model for content and customers.

[gravy]

He is less powerful.

Just still far more powerful than anyone in government.

But that IMPERIAL AMBITION of the BBC spiel Osborne came out with on Marr this morning was straight from the News International playbook. It's their script.

[VNVObit]

A very powerful and influential one or do you think he has less power/influence than freeview?

He has a lot less influence than he once had, after the NOTW hacking scandal. He is also himself withdrawing from having an active role in his business, stepping down as head of Fox in the US, with his son James taking over. He’s 84, hardly an age to be making backroom deals with politicians.

But it’s more that it isn’t just Sky vs. the BBC any more. A decade or more ago the BBC was funded by the license fee and Sky by subscription and that was it, for British TV funding. Yes, ITV etc. were funded by adverts but you also needed to pay the license fee to watch them. Ending the license fee, so the BBC had to compete head on with Sky for subscription fees, would have suited Sky very well.

But there are so more ways to pay for TV now: BT, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Vimeo, HBO Now, YouTube, plus many more national and regional broadcasters that have gone online. There is probably even more free content, much of it high quality, such as top programmes and broadcasts from other countries.

Sky hasn’t had to do anything to make the BBC less important. It has happened anyway. They have many more competitors, including some that compete directly with its subscription-based model for content and customers.

So that's a no you don't think he's less powerful than freeview?

[pogo]

I just don’t think he’s an important factor. the NOTW hacking scandal, the decline of traditional media, both print and TV, and his advancing age.