ITV to create Pay Per View Channels

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you not read what I said? BBC is popular but because it has so many services, its impossible for all its services to exist if it was privatised. Sometimes it feels like I am arguing with a wall.

And no, you look at what UKIP want in future and bark that at people. You are more naive than before.

I did read what you said, you should be asking yourself 'do I understand his very simple points, especially as I claim to be a guru at business' - so let me explain. If the BBC is genuinely (as you say) offering so many popular services then why would it not make a profit. Could it perhaps be the fact that a lot of its services have little demand and and/are a total waste of money?

No I dont look at what UKIP want or what the Labour Party says in your case, I think for myself thank you very much.

Well I do think you are in the minority here according to an ICM poll conducted in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...-james-murdoch

An exerpt supporting this:

I don't suggest that they couldn't spend the money wiser and be more accountable but this is not
a reason to privatise it. All that would happen is that all TV would be dumbed down even more and end up costing a whole lot more than the licence fee. It is the BBC that keeps the fees of it's competitors down and long may it last.

Indeed I could be the minority indeed, however issues such as commercial television should not be decided by the majority as they should be decided by the individual. Now you may want to jump on and say 'HYPOCRITE' but its not;- commercial television is differenet from the government and law making/legislation. As for the BBC keeping costs down/being sensible - quite frankly we had this debate from the 1950s to 1979 and history had shown by that time and it certainly tells us by now that a company which has bottomless pockets due to being backed by the Treasury will not be sensible with money, its just a fact of life.

Just tell me what is wrong with allowing people to choose which television broadcaster they want to watch?

it's a socialist conspiracy to put us all into poverty seriously............................... i'm sure of it. the mail said so.

..the person who thinks the British people actually want a federal Europe despite the fact every opinion poll shows the opposite is trying to paint me as naive? - oh the irony!

[alexxxxx]

well the BBC has done alot for broadcasting across the globe, CEEFAX/teletext was created by the BBC and it was also the first UK to have a truly on demand on line content delivery system (iPlayer), which independent TV had to keep up. The BBC continues to innovate and force through technological change which eventually makes independent television have to improve their game.

[AgnesIO]

Why are we fighting over a £100 tax, that if it wasn't for the BBC we would get charged for something else?

£100 is nothing guys

[Catzsy]

I did read what you said, you should be asking yourself 'do I understand his very simple points, especially as I claim to be a guru at business' - so let me explain. If the BBC is genuinely (as you say) offering so many popular services then why would it not make a profit. Could it perhaps be the fact that a lot of its services have little demand and and/are a total waste of money?

No I dont look at what UKIP want or what the Labour Party says in your case, I think for myself thank you very much.



Indeed I could be the minority indeed, however issues such as commercial television should not be decided by the majority as they should be decided by the individual. Now you may want to jump on and say 'HYPOCRITE' but its not;- commercial television is differenet from the government and law making/legislation. As for the BBC keeping costs down/being sensible - quite frankly we had this debate from the 1950s to 1979 and history had shown by that time and it certainly tells us by now that a company which has bottomless pockets due to being backed by the Treasury will not be sensible with money, its just a fact of life.

Just tell me what is wrong with allowing people to choose which television broadcaster they want to watch?

..the person who thinks the British people actually want a federal Europe despite the fact every opinion poll shows the opposite is trying to paint me as naive? - oh the irony!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as the person doesn't promote is as being the 'majority' when it clearly is not. All opinions that shape this country probably were a minority once but were promoted in a calm and realistic way - it's called lobbying which is a great deal more successful that hyped propaganda. =]

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why are we fighting over a £100 tax, that if it wasn't for the BBC we would get charged for something else?

£100 is nothing guys

We shouldnt be charged for the BBC and we shouldnt be charged for something else. Let people decide what they spend the majority of their money on, not the government.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as the person doesn't promote is as being the 'majority' when it clearly is not. All opinions that shape this country probably were a minority once but were promoted in a calm and realistic way - it's called lobbying which is a great deal more successful that hyped propaganda. =]

It is the majority.

The opinion I hold on the European Union is the majority.
The opinion I hold on the death penalty is the majority.

I dont know how many polls you need slapped down infront of you before you get these messages that; a) people want the death penalty back by a majority and that b) people want to withdraw from the European Union by a majority but it is the majority. So please do now tell me why if the BBC is so popular it wouldnt be able to function and would close, because common business tack says that if a service is popular then it would survive anyway because people will pay to watch a service they want.

Speaking of hyped propaganda, that reminds me of the BBC regarding climate change who seem to take it as solid fact and dont allow any sceptics to get a say.

[AgnesIO]

We shouldnt be charged for the BBC and we shouldnt be charged for something else. Let people decide what they spend the majority of their money on, not the government.

If we did that we could go bankrupt.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If we did that we could go bankrupt.

Wrong, its a simple concept that occured in the 1980s and could of went even futher I believe. The idea of Thatcherite economics aka the free market is that the government is small and does only what it needs to do. Government would then waste less and the economy would be in better shape because there would be more money being spent in the economy. If you have higher taxes then you leave people with less and thus that means the economy does not grow/even slows. That is what we faced in the 1970s, I believe at one point one tax (cant remember whether it was business or income over a certain band) was at 80% and people just moved away.

If you tax business to the hilt then business moves/cannot expand, that then creates unemployment which means more people rely on the ever-growing state which means that to fund that ever growing pile the government must tax more to create more revenue to sustain these people who cannot find work and thus the cycle continues down that road. We need very low taxes for things such as roads and infastruture, as well as keeping the basic principle of government and rule of law in place but we do not need government to dictate to us which commercial broadcaster we watch as well as a massive pile of other expenditures that this government does.

We are heading for a 1970s moment again, I believe the Express said the other day that something like 200 new public sector non-jobs are created every week by the government. It happens under every Labour government - it gains them votes and keeps a cap on the unemployment when in reality it isnt affordable and doesnt benefit anyone. You only have to look in the jobs pages of the Guardian (which is funded by the government through job adverts) for jobs with titles such as 'Bootle Community Cohesion Officer' and the salary is something like £50k a year. Enough is enough; http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/77787

[alexxxxx]

Wrong, its a simple concept that occured in the 1980s and could of went even futher I believe. The idea of Thatcherite economics aka the free market is that the government is small and does only what it needs to do. Government would then waste less and the economy would be in better shape because there would be more money being spent in the economy. If you have higher taxes then you leave people with less and thus that means the economy does not grow/even slows. That is what we faced in the 1970s, I believe at one point one tax (cant remember whether it was business or income over a certain band) was at 80% and people just moved away.

thatcher also had no idea how to control the economy with crippling interest rates, joining ERM at stupid levels, producing a very one dimensional economy leading to us having a stupidly large balance of payments and still not being able to deal with inflation.

[-:Undertaker:-]

thatcher also had no idea how to control the economy with crippling interest rates, joining ERM at stupid levels, producing a very one dimensional economy leading to us having a stupidly large balance of payments and still not being able to deal with inflation.

Would you like to tell me how she created a 'one dimensional economy' - the economy was in turmoil because she was sorting out the exact problem that Labour and your Union friends had created. It is just like now; if a government got in with any clue of how to run an economy they would severly cut back the state - yes unemployment would rapidly rise but unemployment figures are not everything. You can throw billions and billions at non-jobs and you will lower unemployment but you only make the problem worse. Infact my Dad just told me that interest rates were only at their peak for a matter of days during the 1980s and i'm trying to find a chart which showed that the interest rates were actually higher under the previous socialist government and started declining and going down in the 1980s under Thatcher.

Do you not understand the financial mess the country was in during the 1970s or do you like to ignore that? - you know when we had blackouts, the 3 day week, high taxes and little business, strike after strike and the unions in control? When the Uniuted Kingdom had to go to the IMF for an emergency bailout and it got that bad that the army was considering a military coup?

As for the ERM - terrible mistake and no economy should ever be bound to any European project which removes sovereignty. Although in regard to the Germans at present in regards to the euro they are still always one step ahead because it was revealed that instead of smelting and buring their currency, they have it all stored up for when the euro does collapse (which it will). So yes, criticise Jonh Major and the rest of the europhiles but do not criticise somebody who saved this country from the socialist hell that the Eastern Europeans were suffering and the North Koreans suffer now.

If you like socialism so much and the idea of 'wealth re-distribution' aka state theft, then please by all means move to a socialist country. My city was ruined by people such as you who care for nothing but more money to spend which is not your own. You hate the idea of somebody bettering themselves. I think I know what you mean now by the term 'one dimensional economy' - does it mean closing subsidised businesses that were crippling the government?

If so, you're a lonely solider on that cliff.

[alexxxxx]

Would you like to tell me how she created a 'one dimensional economy' - the economy was in turmoil because she was sorting out the exact problem that Labour and your Union friends had created. It is just like now; if a government got in with any clue of how to run an economy they would severly cut back the state - yes unemployment would rapidly rise but unemployment figures are not everything. You can throw billions and billions at non-jobs and you will lower unemployment but you only make the problem worse. Infact my Dad just told me that interest rates were only at their peak for a matter of days during the 1980s and i'm trying to find a chart which showed that the interest rates were actually higher under the previous socialist government and started declining and going down in the 1980s under Thatcher.

Do you think that 15% interest rates are a good idea? That's what thatcher thought. All that does is destroy demand for our own goods and artificially increases our exchange rate, destroying jobs here for increasing imports. Unemployment was increasing at some points at 100 000 a month, and provisions for these people to re train and new industries coming to the area has destroyed areas which have never recovered (ex-mining towns for an example), leading to many of the social ills you cry about all the time.

Do you not understand the financial mess the country was in during the 1970s or do you like to ignore that? - you know when we had blackouts, the 3 day week, high taxes and little business, strike after strike and the unions in control? When the Uniuted Kingdom had to go to the IMF for an emergency bailout and it got that bad that the army was considering a military coup?

there was undeniably a fiscal problem, yes and it had to be sorted out. However the way that it was handled was frankly stupid. the working class in this country hit the floor in the country with the largest thud for a long time.

As for the ERM - terrible mistake and no economy should ever be bound to any European project which removes sovereignty. Although in regard to the Germans at present in regards to the euro they are still always one step ahead because it was revealed that instead of smelting and buring their currency, they have it all stored up for when the euro does collapse (which it will). So yes, criticise Jonh Major and the rest of the europhiles but do not criticise somebody who saved this country from the socialist hell that the Eastern Europeans were suffering and the North Koreans suffer now.

An ERM isn't actually a stupid idea as it guarantees and stablises exchange rates which CAN help businesses effectively plan their futures. When you try to cheat and enter in at a high level, you will be punished, which is what happened. I doubt the euro will fail.

If you like socialism so much and the idea of 'wealth re-distribution' aka state theft, then please by all means move to a socialist country. My city was ruined by people such as you who care for nothing but more money to spend which is not your own. You hate the idea of somebody bettering themselves. I think I know what you mean now by the term 'one dimensional economy' - does it mean closing subsidised businesses that were crippling the government?

No by a 1D economy i mean that our government has not encouraged enough manufacturing in this country and soley focussed on the service sector, which are generally hard to export apart from finacial services, which means we get a stupidly large trade defecit. If these businesses had been sold off, with subsidies on building new capital we'd be able to compete for alot longer. There isn't enough capital investment in the economy - see mainland europe for examples.

I think people should be able to better themselves, but i don't think they should have to take on £30k of university debt, nor should people have to work 3 jobs to be able to afford to send their kids to school, nor should we have to pay monopolies stupid amounts of money for healthcare (see the USA) to do so.