Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

He should have no voice, IMO. He's an Aussie turned U.S. citizen whose companies don't pay UK tax in the way they really ought to. He uses, as you say, his media companies to further his own agenda, not that of the british people.

And he's evil

which year did he become evil though :winkold:

[peterms]

How does one determine the ability of the economy to provide goods and services? Who would make such determinations? How might one guard against those who believe they would benefit from inflation/deflation from influencing things?

The economy is far too important for any government or the bankers (wait, they're now the same thing...) to be trusted with.

Seriously? The plethora of information being collected all the time shows whether and where there is spare capacity, ie unused ability to provide goods and services.

How to guard against people influencing things for their own benefit? Pretty hard, especially in a global economy with few restrictions on capital, as Norman Lamont memorably found out at our expense, and as some other governments are now experiencing. Fewer controls and less regulation leads to increased scope for people to do that kind of thing.

[peterms]

Ok Peter - and don't take this the wrong way - the possible solutions that UK can take unilaterally without massively damaging our economy are what?

Invest in public infrastructure. The rate and location of investment would need to be planned so as not to overheat various sectors, or else construction companies just put prices up.

So who does the planning and how would one ensure that construction companies just didn't put the prices up?

It sure would be a great thing for a construction company to bung whoever does the planning to skew the plans a certain way (or for whoever does the planning to quietly take a small stake in a particular construction company).

The planning for public infrastructure is obviously done by the various public bodies commissioning it. There's a need for a central body to ensure that the public sector isn't trying to commission so much at the same time that firms can get away with just pushing up prices, which is their tendency is they can get away with it.

Bungs - yes, they happen in the private and public sectors. An open and transparent commissioning process is one defence against that. Controls on lobbying activity might be another.

Introduce proper regulation of the finance sector. There's only so much that can be done on this unilaterally, but something is better than the absence of effective regulation we've seen recently.

Again, who decides what regulation is proper and how does one guard against undue influence of certain interests?

The government. To begin with, a level of regulation which cannot determine whether requirements are being complied with, is inadequate.

Those regulated need to have a say as well, and regulation should conform to some principles (transparency, fairness and proportionality are reasonable ones, for example), with the subjects of regulation able to challenge regulatory activity. At present, we seem to have a dearth of regulation in some important areas, with some quite heavy regulation in others.

Enhance skills training, looking especially at the skills we are most likely to need in the near to medium future.

How does one determine what skills will be needed in the near to medium future and who would make such determinations?

Everyone makes those judgements right now, both on a personal and an organisational level. As with markets as a whole, those individual decisions may (and probably will) end up with some things not happening which really need to happen. So if we can foresee a need for people with the skills to develop alternative energy sources, to take one example, then if industry isn't developing those skills, someone, ie the government, needs to take some action - which could be directly providing that skills development, or more likely, identifying what incentives and assurances would be needed for the industry to do it, as well as identifying a means of preventing valuable skills just being poached at the end of the training. Sitting on your hands and hoping that the market will sort it out just won't work.

[avfc89]

The BBC isn't left.

it so is , and always has been

Rubbish. The BBC is more to the right and occasionally in the middle politically.

[tonyh29]

It wasn't nick named the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation for nothing you know

Still you keep believing I won't demean your opinion by dubbing it rubbish

[avfc89]

It wasn't nick named the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation for nothing you know

Still you keep believing I won't demean your opinion by dubbing it rubbish

I'm sorry Tony, I don't know how you've come to that conclusion. The BBC in comparison to Sky News is billion times balanced and that is all really.

[Ads]

British Board of Communists- right wing?

[Gringo]

And this is why we need more, not less media studies graduates.

[peterms]

It wasn't nick named the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation for nothing you know

Still you keep believing I won't demean your opinion by dubbing it rubbish

A websearch on "bolshevik broadcasting corporation" is illuminating. The links it throws up appear to be a collection of frankly weird nutjobs, using the internet to vent their spleen where in times past they would have sounded off down the pub, or talked to the wall.

Tony, do you have something to support your view of bias, like for example an evidenced and credible academic study? Or is your view untainted by such material?

[tonyh29]

The term was coined originally buy Peter Bruinvels if I recall , not looked at the nutjobs on the searches so can't offer an opinion on that one

I genuinely thought the whole world and his dog knew of the BBC's left wing bias ... Recently the director general of the BBC himself came out and admitted it a few years back, Mark Thompson was his name if someone Wants to look him up

[peterms]

The term was coined originally buy Peter Bruinvels if I recall , not looked at the nutjobs on the searches so can't offer an opinion on that one

I genuinely thought the whole world and his dog knew of the BBC's left wing bias ... Recently the director general of the BBC himself came out and admitted it a few years back, Mark Thompson was his name if someone Wants to look him up

Tony, I'm a bit puzzled now.

I thought you were doing a bit of knockabout stuff, everyone knows how the sandal-wearers at the beeb will report this, and so on. But this post suggests you're actually serious.

Am I just not reading internet irony here, or do you really, really mean what you say? I honestly can't tell.

[tonyh29]

Am I just not reading internet irony here, or do you really, really mean what you say? I honestly can't tell.

there is a quote directly from the mouth of the director General of the BBC where he openly admits it , but for my mind the BBC has always been left wing , the DG just sorta confirmed it

http://tinyurl.com/2facquo

it could be about perception , some studies the other year a lot of viewers thought that ITV was Tory biased and that CH4 was Lib Dem bias .. it could just be in the eye of the beholder

[Chindie]

ITV has a thick as shit reactionary moron bias for reference.

I speak as someone who regularly watches with disgust.

[peterms]

Am I just not reading internet irony here, or do you really, really mean what you say? I honestly can't tell.

there is a quote directly from the mouth of the director General of the BBC where he openly admits it , but for my mind the BBC has always been left wing , the DG just sorta confirmed it

http://tinyurl.com/2facquo

it could be about perception , some studies the other year a lot of viewers thought that ITV was Tory biased and that CH4 was Lib Dem bias .. it could just be in the eye of the beholder

OK, a few things to say about that.

You can't seriously call on anything from the Evening Standard on political issues. Even the people who work for it are ashamed by it. However, taking the piece they printed:

What the article says is that 30 years ago there was a clear left view among the majority of BBC journos, in the view of the person quoted, but now that's not the case, in his view.

Even assuming the statement about 30 years ago to be true, why do you see the statement as evidence that there is a current bias, when it says the opposite?

Second, does it matter more what views the journo holds, or how accurate and unbiased the story is? Pretty obviously the second, if we accept that anyone concerned about political bias in reporters is mainly concerned with the possible impact this will have on others (we can agree on that, can't we?).

So if we look at whether the reporting of the Beeb is biased, we tend to find that it's one of the most respected, trusted, and felt-to-be-objective news sources in the world. Not an accusation ever levelled at Mr Murdoch, I think.

So. The DG isn't saying the BBC is left wing. He says (in an edited interview) that 30 years ago a majority of its journos were, but that's not the case now. He describes a "tetchy relationship" with the Labour government, and a good settlement with the current lot.

Is it possible that you have somewhat overstated the case against the beeb? And if not, could it be restated in terms which relate to the stories they cover and whether the coverage is biased, rather than the reflections of one person about his impressions of a political mindset some 30 years ago?

[tonyh29]

You can't seriously call on anything from the Evening Standard on political issues. Even the people who work for it are ashamed by it. However, taking the piece they printed:

the interview was reported on various media outlets the ES just happened to be the one I picked

there was a book by Robin Aitken in 2005

http://theinternetforum.co.uk/bbc/bias1.html

and even in 2007 a BBC internal review found it was still guilty of "institutional trendy left-wing bias"

maybe it's just all about perception and nothing more ?

[snowychap]

From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel.

[blandy]

He should have no voice, IMO. He's an Aussie turned U.S. citizen whose companies don't pay UK tax in the way they really ought to. He uses, as you say, his media companies to further his own agenda, not that of the british people.

In what way do you think the media should further the agenda of the British People ? Do you think the media really is that influential ?

The BBC have been lefties since forever why can't someone like Murdoch be the yang to their ying ?

Personally I'm more worried by the hello magazine types and the braindeads that follow trends that celebs come out with rather than something one of Murdochs new channels might broadcast

I don't think he needs to use his papers etc to further the interests of the British people. What I'm saying is, because he uses his papers etc. to further his own views and interests (against those of the UK people), because he is not a UK citizen he should have no say or influence on UK politics or politicians.

I think he is influential, and I think so because the Politicians say fear of his disapproval affects their decisions.

Hello! and all those sawdust for brains mags are a kind of sop to the permanently dull and as far as I know contain nothing of intellectual value whatsoever. Theyr'e the paper equivalent of junk food. They're utter sh*te, but they are harmless.

[snowychap]

NMA animation of the Cable thing.

[Gringo]

He should have no voice, IMO. He's an Aussie turned U.S. citizen whose companies don't pay UK tax in the way they really ought to. He uses, as you say, his media companies to further his own agenda, not that of the british people.

In what way do you think the media should further the agenda of the British People ? Do you think the media really is that influential ?

The BBC have been lefties since forever why can't someone like Murdoch be the yang to their ying ?

Personally I'm more worried by the hello magazine types and the braindeads that follow trends that celebs come out with rather than something one of Murdochs new channels might broadcast

I don't think he needs to use his papers etc to further the interests of the British people. What I'm saying is, because he uses his papers etc. to further his own views and interests (against those of the UK people), because he is not a UK citizen he should have no say or influence on UK politics or politicians.

I think he is influential, and I think so because the Politicians say fear of his disapproval affects their decisions.

Hello! and all those sawdust for brains mags are a kind of sop to the permanently dull and as far as I know contain nothing of intellectual value whatsoever. Theyr'e the paper equivalent of junk food. They're utter sh*te, but they are harmless.

Whilst neither of these two areas of media are likable or helpful in progressing society; to compare the damage done with sky to that by dirty desmond's celeb glossies is either to deliberately mislead or woefully naive.

[tonyh29]

to compare the damage done with sky to that by dirty desmond's celeb glossies is either to deliberately mislead or woefully naive.

see I don't think so

Thanks to hello magazine we have young girls growing up wanting to be like Katie Price ..and that is far far worse than anything Murdoch has ever done