Not The Politics Thread.

[Jon the Hat]

16 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Imagine being so thin-skinned about one channel having a news programme slanted in a way you don't like that you take action as self-defeating as this. "Snowflake" doesn't come close.

Although to be fair C4 News as a taxpayer funded show should be more independent.  Generally not sure why state ownership of C4 is necessary these days.

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Although to be fair C4 News as a taxpayer funded show should be more independent.  Generally not sure why state ownership of C4 is necessary these days.

I thought C4 was funded through commercials though.  I mean I guess it was tax funded when it got set up but its a bit of a stretch to keep calling it publicly funded. 

 

State ownership is only really important in my eyes in that it prevents C4 being driven down the ITV model/going behind a paywall as currently it doesn't have shareholders to try and please with profits.  I'm really not sure a small cash in on C4 is really worth it to be honest as C4 currently costs us nothing and its not like we are talking tens or hundredths of billion £ (last valuation was around a billion pounds).  Just means it may well end up behind a paywall with BT, Discovery or someone else.  Seems a pointless endeavour to me.

 

Edited 5 April 2022 by foxes1988

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

I thought C4 was funded through commercials though.  I mean I guess it was tax funded when it got set up but its a bit of a stretch to keep calling it publicly funded. 

 

State ownership is only really important in my eyes in that it prevents C4 being driven down the ITV model/going behind a paywall as currently it doesn't have shareholders to try and please with profits.  I'm really not sure a small cash in on C4 is really worth it to be honest as C4 currently costs us nothing and its not like we are talking tens or hundredths of billion £ (last valuation was around a billion pounds).  Just means it may well end up behind a paywall with BT, Discovery or someone else.  Seems a pointless endeavour to me.

 

Yes I have just done a bit of reading - state owned but in fact profitable to the taxpayer (hence has commercial value).  If it is profitable with its current model it is not likely to go behind a subscription model imo.  Still as you say it seems to add value to the regions, so looks out of step with the levelling up agenda to sell it for peanuts.

[foxes1988]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Yes I have just done a bit of reading - state owned but in fact profitable to the taxpayer (hence has commercial value).  If it is profitable with its current model it is not likely to go behind a subscription model imo.  Still as you say it seems to add value to the regions, so looks out of step with the levelling up agenda to sell it for peanuts.

 

Yeah hopefully if its sold it stays largely as is.  Im just worried a private C4 and BBC and then ITV's & SKY's etc quality drops (although generally they are pretty poor atm).

[Strokes]

The depths this government will sink too, to hide its corruption and incompetence is astonishing tbh. 

[chapero82]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The depths this government will sink too, to hide its corruption and incompetence is astonishing tbh. 

Yet they will still remain in power at the next election 

[HighPeakFox]

I don't know what's worse - the sheer obvious gaslighting going on, or the amount of people who deny it happens and that they wouldn't fall for it anyway.

[Strokes]

12 minutes ago, chapero82 said:

Yet they will still remain in power at the next election 

I’m not so sure, I think it’s most likely a hung Parliament.

Still along way to go yet.

[Innovindil]

15 minutes ago, chapero82 said:

Yet they will still remain in power at the next election 

Only if things significantly improve between now and 2024.

 

Take everything else to do with covid and brexit away, this is a tory party that has raised taxes AND betrayed the triple lock. 2 things that will actually hurt them in an election. 

 

All Labour need to do is parrot that and nothing but that and it'll make things interesting. 

[sdb]

Why are we not rioting? Seriously. They're ****ing literally every part of our lives up.

[Dames]

No foreign power would ever need to wage war on Britain to gain control of it. They can just buy up infrastructure piece by piece at a discounted rate from the Tories. 

[yorkie1999]

28 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Only if things significantly improve between now and 2024.

 

Take everything else to do with covid and brexit away, this is a tory party that has raised taxes AND betrayed the triple lock. 2 things that will actually hurt them in an election. 

 

All Labour need to do is parrot that and nothing but that and it'll make things interesting. 

Things will significantly improve, they take things off us and then give them back before an election, and we're grateful, so we vote them back in, if only labour could get their shit together and put down a manifesto that people believe in, they'd win, but they're all, both Labour and Tory, too busy protecting themselves and trying to cheat the taxpayer out of as much money as possible. None of em represent the people that put them there. The last decent politician that spoke his mind and said it how it is was two jags.

[LiberalFox]

I'm not sure Starmer offers enough for people to switch their votes and demographic shift isn't going to overturn the size of Johnson's current majority. I would love it if the Conservatives were punished for the way they and particularly the PM conduct themselves in government but I'm not sure that is important to Conservative voters.

 

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

According to the latest polls, if an election were held tomorrow it would result in a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party but 39 seats short of a majority. If the Tories remain behind in the polls this time next year, they'll very likely ditch Johnson and get somebody else in. They'll also use all sorts of giveaways to entice floating voters back onside. Result? Another Tory government, albeit with a reduced majority. 

[CosbehFox]

I think any opposition's best efforts would be to concentrate far more locally than any political party as ever before. 

 

There's a lot of angered people who would work as decent electioneers for you. Concentrate on those winnable seats in the small majority areas. I know where I live now you could have a field day just concentrating on the current MPs voting history and it shows no care or consideration for his constitutions. 

 

The biggest fault of opposition in recent years has been to impose what they believe to be the country's problems rather than what the electorate actually thinks or feels. That's what as allowed the current bunch 'speak' to the common person. 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, sdb said:

Why are we not rioting? Seriously. They're ****ing literally every part of our lives up.

What does rioting solve?

[LiberalFox]

Recent politics here and in the USA has seen the right tap in to a lot of anti-establishment feeling. Trump, Brexit, Johnson. The question is if there is still that feeling by the time of the next election. Paradoxically the things that make Johnson completely unappealing to me may make him popular to others. Starmer is never going to be able to present an image of anything other than an establishment figure. 

[Strokes]

If the opposition want to win the election then they need to take it. It is there for the taking. Tell us your vision in detail and woo the electorate. It can’t be that hard looking at the bleak daily reality. If they are waiting for the government to lose it, they might miss their chance.

[Daggers]

On 04/04/2022 at 08:25, StanSP said:

Just read that excuse by that Tory MP  

Wtaf

 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm not sure Starmer offers enough …

A syphilitic, crack addicted, brain damaged, child abusing 70s celebrity offers more than the current incumbents - anything, absolutely anything is preferable to our present administration. 
 

The lies, the corruption, the incompetence; Starmer could offer a daily face slapping with a rag coated in diahorrea and it would still be a win for everyone. 

[RoboFox]

4 hours ago, foxes1988 said:

I thought C4 was funded through commercials though.  I mean I guess it was tax funded when it got set up but its a bit of a stretch to keep calling it publicly funded. 

 

State ownership is only really important in my eyes in that it prevents C4 being driven down the ITV model/going behind a paywall as currently it doesn't have shareholders to try and please with profits.  I'm really not sure a small cash in on C4 is really worth it to be honest as C4 currently costs us nothing and its not like we are talking tens or hundredths of billion £ (last valuation was around a billion pounds).  Just means it may well end up behind a paywall with BT, Discovery or someone else.  Seems a pointless endeavour to me.

 

It would be economically illiterate, culturally devastating and a huge blow to the independent production industry, but there is a point to what they're trying to do with C4

 

It's about suppressing the liberal media and stopping public service broadcasters accurately reporting on Tory corruption and duplicity.

 

Dorries is as about as dangerously inept a politician you're ever likely to see in public office. She wrongly claimed last year that Channel 4 was “in receipt of public money”. Now she claims selling off free-to-air Channel 4 will allow it to compete against streaming giants Netflix and Amazon. The level of ignorance is as disturbing as the casual vandalism by the establishment of everything which dares to question them. 

 

I guarantee this is Murdoch pulling the strings here and it feels like another step closer to living in a state of authoritarian censorship.

 

Edited 5 April 2022 by RoboFox

[LiberalFox]

12 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think you are pretty bold to assume that in some cases it isn't just that.  There are plenty of well documented cases of de transitioning.  It seems dangerous to me to group counselling for someone proposing to go through major irreversible hormone therapy or surgery with so called conversion therapy given my religious nut jobs who are homophobic.  It isn't the same thing.

People associate conversion therapy with overt homophobia and religious nut jobs but it wasn't always that way. All I want is for society including therapists to treat trans gender identities as not inherently worse than cis. I do follow the "de-trans" movement. It's possible that there are people with body dysmorphia or some form of mental illness who mistakenly believe they are trans. They may be non-binary. I hope there aren't trans people being brainwashed into thinking there is something wrong with them. There's a difference between trying to change someone's gender identity and deciding whether to provide a medical service to them. To me there is no conflict. 

 

 

 

 

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

If the opposition want to win the election then they need to take it. It is there for the taking. Tell us your vision in detail and woo the electorate. It can’t be that hard looking at the bleak daily reality. If they are waiting for the government to lose it, they might miss their chance.

 

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

A syphilitic, crack addicted, brain damaged, child abusing 70s celebrity offers more than the current incumbents - anything, absolutely anything is preferable to our present administration. 
 

The lies, the corruption, the incompetence; Starmer could offer a daily face slapping with a rag coated in diahorrea and it would still be a win for everyone. 

Not quite the vision I had in mind but still interesting and food for thought 🤔

[Dahnsouff]

4 hours ago, RoboFox said:

It would be economically illiterate, culturally devastating and a huge blow to the independent production industry, but there is a point to what they're trying to do with C4

 

It's about suppressing the liberal media and stopping public service broadcasters accurately reporting on Tory corruption and duplicity.

 

Dorries is as about as dangerously inept a politician you're ever likely to see in public office. She wrongly claimed last year that Channel 4 was “in receipt of public money”. Now she claims selling off free-to-air Channel 4 will allow it to compete against streaming giants Netflix and Amazon. The level of ignorance is as disturbing as the casual vandalism by the establishment of everything which dares to question them. 

 

I guarantee this is Murdoch pulling the strings here and it feels like another step closer to living in a state of authoritarian censorship.

 

Not condoning it, but how is C4 any longer of cultural relevance in the face of true independent streaming available across the internet? 

[Sampson]

11 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Not condoning it, but how is C4 any longer of cultural relevance in the face of true independent streaming available across the internet? 

Streaming services not as big and as mainstream as people think it is on the internet though. Same as the voices on Twitter aren't what most people think.

 

The biggest shows on BBC, ITV and C4 still pull people in by the millions and still have massive cultural pull.

 

I bet you more people still watch Countdown everyday still than any Netflix or Amazon Prime show.