The Tories vs the Beeb

Burkefan

"innate liberal bias"? He may be quoting Marr, but has Cameron too slipped for the American idiocy of confusing 'liberal' and 'leftie'. Surely if the BBC is genuinely liberal then they won't be 'instinctively pro-Big State'.

Laughing Larry

The best parody of Brown yet:

Gordon Brown's Downfall - house prices crash:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jbgwR1pA1k0&feature=related

It is truly brillant

Nicholas

Cameron seems almost to excuse the bias, but it should be judged by the Corporation's own editorial guidelines and therefore perhaps judged more harshly:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/politics/principlesofpol.shtml

The guidelines were even referenced in a response from the BBC to a complaint about their political bias so a real problem lies with the BBC's own editorial discipline, diligence and accountability, as indeed we have seen from BrandRossGate.

Cameron's "attack" appears weak and mealy-mouthed to me. Enough to stir up even more hostility from the BBC but not sufficient to wound the beast or stimulate a more open debate about the problem.

Maybe he was probing or trying to provoke a reaction?

Water

Talks of bias once more.

Ray

To paraphrase the immortal words of William Macpherson, the BBC is "institutionally biased".

Dave Liked To Go Wooding

The phrase "more a loose aspiration than a definite aim" sums up the Tory leader's policy-lite approach.

Tom

Oh ffs - enough of the xxxGate shorthand. It's lazy, it's boring, and it's been done to death.

Anthony

Cameron said, he approves of the way the Beeb IS funded.
That might not mean a darn thing come 2010.

oldtimer

I think that the BBC inhabits an ivory tower, run by a self perpetuating management oligarchy, funded by a tax system enforced by snooping detector vans and the criminal law. All the evidence is that it is a self-satisfied, arrogant, bureaucratic and politically biased organisation that is too comfortable in its own self centred world and impervious to external criticism. The Ross/Brand episode has served to awaken many people to voice their complaints about this state of affairs. For a start, they would like to see the letter L introduced into the pubic sector broadcasting that passes for much current BBC output. In short, we have an out of control monster on our hands. It needs to be cut down to size.

strapworld.

Cameron has proved, to me yet again, that he has no stomach for a fight. The next election is going to be very dirty. Can anyone believe, now, that Cameron has got the 'bottle' for a fight?

An open goal. An opportunity to express needed change within the BBC. An opportunity to tell the electorate that he would sell off parts of the BBC which did not need to be run by the state. I mean what other country, supposedly democratic country, runs music channels?
Likewise what other, supposedly democratic country, runs Television channels?

This is an opportunity to save the people money and bring about much needed change in our broadcasting.

IF Cameron is so worried about political bias...why does he not try opening a TORY RADIO STATION. You never know it may attract great support and financial backing! I leave it to others to come up with suitable programmes!!

Cameron is showing that he is no leader. A toff wanting to control what we lower orders see and hear!

Nothing changes.

mac

I hope that Cameron's line is boxing clever rather than being mealy-mouthed over the issue of political bias.

The cause of the left-wing bias is clear: it results from the entrenched lefties recruiting fellow travellers to enjoy the gravy train. They believe that the policy is untouchable and relish the opportunities to proselytize for "their" party in government, unchecked by an especially craven (and probably sympathetic) higher management and a supine BBC Trust.

It's understandable that Cameron chooses not to say so openly and so frighten those many horses who would reflexively oppose a candid appraisal of our mythical 'national treasure, the fearless and independent BBC'.

A reckoning needs to come, but at least Cameron has put down a marker, even if for interim tactical reasons he allows a fig leaf exculpation.

I certainly hope that that is what he's doing . . .

Kipling

Why not offer a reduced licence fee for those on low incomes, and at the same time stop benefits payments to those that despite their 'hardship' can afford to continue to subscribe to Sky, Virgin packages etc.

David

Yet again Stapworld misses the point. Even if Cameron did want to break up the BBC, do you really think he'd be stupid enough to say so before he was in a position to do something about it? I very much doubt CCHQ could tackle the BBC's unlimited propaganda budget; we'd see it constantly defend itself and the bias go into overdrive. I don't know what he wants to do; I'm not sure whether he does want to break it up, but I also reckon he wants to go further than this article suggests. But he must keep his cards close to his chest until he is in a position to do something. To come out for abolition now would be like the 300 Spartans marching right into the middle of Xerxes's army - brave, but incredibly stupid.

Fergus Pickering

What is the actual oint of your policy, Kipling. Why should the poor enjoy this hand-out rather than plenty of others, a petrol allowance, food stamps, grants for children when they go to school etc etc. Is a television licence more important then that? As for the ban on Sky, how would you enforce that? Would you have squads of social workers to burst into people's houses and see what they were watching? Or would a dish outside be proof of a subscription inside. Suppose I, who am relatively rich, bought a Sky subscription for my brother, who is poor, because i know he loves cricket? Would that mean his benefits would be cut? Is an OAP a benefit? The Government says it is. So poor pensioners can't watch the cricket eh? But they can watch a subsidised Jonathan Ross.

strapworld

David, says I "Yet again" misses the point.

Sorry, David but I believe in openness and honesty in politics. I do not want Cameron, or whoever should lead the tories into the next general election, telling me one thing then when elected do something different.

That is what Blair and his cronies since have gone about things. I prefer straight talking.

I also do not believe that one should be hesitant when dealing with something that is wrong. Wouldn't people be impressed by a leader that shows he is going to face up to an overgrown and potentially dangerous organisation?

I am sorry, David, that I do not have your intellect and powers of campaigning. I am sorry that truthfulness is now something that should be hidden.

But the 300 Spartans didn't march right into Xerxes army did they. THEY FACED UP TO THEM and WON!

Sad that, isnt it!

Tiberius

David; you're fast becoming my most favoured poster.

Alfred T Mahan

I think it's naive to assume that if Dave doesn't say so openly nobody at the Beeb will think he's likely to demolish it once in power, and they therefore won't attack him or the Tories.

Far better for Dave to be honest - then BBC bias will be understood by all as the ravings of parasites scared for their jobs, and their reporting will lose all remaining credibility.

David

Strapworld, your post makes good hypothetical sense. I too believe in openness in politics, and I share your worries about the BBC. But my disagreement is from a practical point of view. Every time anyone says anything about the BBC, they wheel out their army of PR men, reporters and other employees to rubbish the claims. I recall a few months ago when Jeremy Hunt proposed giving a tiny portion of the the licence fee to other organisations, the BBC flooded the newspapers with articles, wrote all over their website, and interviewed each other on the television about it. They completely destroyed the story because they a) are in a position to do so, and b) have an agenda. Cameron cannot come from nothing to say 'scrap the BBC', however unpopular they might be at the moment. He simply isn't powerful enough to do so. What what he can do though is begin to construct an agenda against the BBC. Whether this is the first step or the only step, I don't know. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if this idea was taken further before an election - so that it's not something done 'seretly' once an election is won. But I believe that, despite the unpopular period the BBC is going through, it simply has too much power and influence, at the moment, for a politician with no actual power to take it on.

Tiberius - I took that as a complement. I hope I was supposed to ;)

David Lindsay

The BBC made David Cameron.

But can it unmake him now that he has bitten its feeding hand, and that by means of an article in a Murdoch paper?

Auntie, it's over to you.

Tiberius

It was meant as a compliment, David, although I have since seen two of your recent posts on Mel's and Stephen's blogs which I didn't agree with. But we seem to think alike on the party politics.

If you haven't already, you must introduce yourself to Verity and TGF UKIP sometime.

Water

Oh we don't underestimate DC, but that's always been axiomatic hasn't it...

Kipling

Fergus - my main point is I don't want to see taxpayers money subsidise any television.

We are stuck with the licence fee for the time being, so let's cut that tax from those who are less able to pay it, at the same time reducing the BBC's income and stiffling it's growth.

Sky subscriptions are not a tax, they are not forced on people, it is entirely voluntarily. Yes the same can be said of tv and radio, but I think we are at a point where basic access to that is deemed more of a basic need than movies and sport.

You simply enforce the ban by matching the Sky subscription database with those on certain types of benefits. It won't be perfect but it's a start. Why should my money be used to pay someone job seekers allowance, if they can afford a subsciption of a similar cost. It's a luxury which I don't believe I should be forced to pay for. It's a safety net, not a handout to use however you please.

As for your example, you would be very kind to give your brother a subscription but if he is that poor that he needs benefits then perhaps you could put your money to better use rather than expect your fellow taxpayers to pay for his living costs.

thomas

There are two ways the Tory govt. (touch wood) could go.

The first would be that it interprets the broken society in terms of the embededness of big-government, statist thinking in our society blighting our lives. That govt. would dismantle al-Beeb, renegotiate a trade agreement with the EU and introduce choice into public services.

The second way would be in moralising terms; to focus entirely on individual morality and to tinker with the benefit system like a leftist who is convinced that society can and should mould humanity.

Let us hope it is the former, because the latter would be some Major-esque back to basics nightmare, and would leave all real conservatives in despair.

Fergus Pickering

Kipling. movies and sport are a basic need. Trust me on this.