writes a reader,
“and I am really quite surprised nobody has yet proffered it. It is as follows.
In order to ensure that MG Rover remains fully funded in perpetuity, all the government need do is introduce a Motor Vehicle Licence of say £116 a year, which would be payable by everybody who owns any car. If you own more than one car, the MVL would be the same, and if your car is black or white you’d get a discount.
“There are about 20 million cars in the UK so this would bring in £2.3 billion a year for MG Rover, a national treasure that the world envies. Thanks to the unique way MGR would be funded, it would no longer need to worry about producing anything people actually want. It would rake in billions a year whether anyone bought a single car or not, and no matter how third-rate its output, we’d all be forced to pay for it regardless.
“To ensure full compliance, the MVL would be enforced by the MVLA, which would criminally prosecute anyone caught without an MVL and would send detector vans around to spy on people to make sure they don’t own any cars. It would assume that anyone who says they don’t own a car at all is lying and it would harass them continually with aggressive letters and vague threats.
“At only £116 a year or barely 35p a day, nobody could reasonably claim they cannot afford this, and it goes without saying that everyone benefits from MG Rover’s existence even if they have never used one of the company’s products and never intend to.
“With an income stream on this scale, it wouldn’t be long before MG Rover became a bloated bureaucracy of 60,000 penpushing lefties all sucking a living off the state teat – God bless them all.”
Excellent satire! Just imagine if the state were to go around funding its ‘services’ like that! 😉
And when you switch it on … it will only take you where they want you to go! 😉
Excellent!
Excellent indeed. But is it satire?
The Beebazoid-produced car would automatically switch off after a certain amount of driving per day, to enforce “equality” of driving times for all drivers! But only for white native born Brits of Christian ancestry. Religious and ethnic minorities owning the car would get **more** driving time before automatic switch-off, to make up for their societally produced disadvantages. Such car-owners would also get heating, CD players and air conditioning; whilst cars produced for Native Brits would not feature any of those luxuries.
Beautiful satire, but it’s actually how the UK car industry used to be run!
When British Leyland was a nationalised company, they never made a profit, and every year they would come back to parliament for a continuing subsidy, which was paid by taxpayers, including people who never drove. And yes, the result was vast overmanning, and loads of nice votes for Labour.
Come to think of it, Airbus is still run this way, as are a few national airlines, plus of course the entire European agricultural industry. Can we say “CAP”?
Dont forget that when you stop the MVL car,if you had one, there would be adverts to tell their other products coming-if you give them more money.
At least it’s free when you press the red button on the BBC. Er, wait a minute….
Hey my MG Beebazoid keeps veering left and makes a terrible noise when I try to turn right.
This approach to economics keeps the BBC going, why wouldn’t it work for Rovers?
Can’t say Muslim immigrant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4436979.stm
Can’t say muslim, Can’t say finsbury park mosque…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4438593.stm
Typical leading “When did you stop beating your wife” “question” about John Bolton on (D)HYS. Designed to elicit the usual Bush, Bolton and anti-US rhetoric, which (D)HYS serves up with relish:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4434093.stm
Brilliant MG Rover Satire.
O/T
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4438667.stm
Beeboids threatening to strike.
Please do, I beg you all to go on strike and never come back. Ever.
Imagine threatening to withhold your labour when no one wants it anyway. Fantastic.
Vacate White City Now.
OT:
Would it be possible to introduce some sort of organization into the way material is presented on this site?
I mean, for instance, classifying items into a number of categories (broad or narrow as necessary), such as is done on the Beeb site itself.
So you could have a section for postings about, say, the UK, another for the Americas, and so on.
Is there any possibility here for a more systematic approach to tackling the Beeb?
anon,
You could definitely make a very active segment just for categorizing the sins of (D)HYS alone! Also, Justin Webb and Orla could have their own dedicated segments as well.
Brillant!!Manya true word is spoken in jest!
I think the satire works only to the extent that people don’t want public service broadcasting in the same way they don’t want (it would seem) Rover cars. However, I think the evidence is all the other way.
Does anyone know of any polls about public service broadcasting not paid for by interested parties (eg. BBC or Rupert Murdoch)? My guess is that probably 80% of the country want public service broadcasting and are prepared to pay for it. Whether they are prepared to pay so much and how they pay for it are other questions perhaps.
I think the problem is that the BBC is now a left-liberal citadel accountable to no one. We need national elections to the board of governors. We also need to review the licence fee. I think it would be a lot less bother just to take the money out of general tax revenues or through a combination of that and a levy on private sector boradcasters.
OT-
The most ludicrous shining example of bias at the moment – as mentinoed by someone else recently – must be the BBC’s obsession with the John Bolton hearings. I can’t imagine that more than a 100 people in the whole country have any genuine interest in this story. But during a general election campaign they persist in focussing on this story. We know why. Because Bolton might actually be an effective critic of the way the UN operates and because he was outspoken as a regime change man. In terms of the BBC’s world view this IS a big story.
Of course it is an important story in some senses – his appointment will affect teh future – but then you could say that about a thosands of stories around the globe which never get featured.
The BBC’s Bolton obsession speaks volumes about their lazy, fixated, biased news agenda.
“My guess is that probably 80% of the country want public service broadcasting and are prepared to pay for it.”
I couldn’t disagree more with your figure. I think it’s much, much lower. In any case, if people want it they will pay for it, yes? So make it voluntary.
“I think it would be a lot less bother just to take the money out of general tax revenues or through a combination of that and a levy on private sector boradcasters.”
Are you continuing the satire?
Good point by anonymous on the organisation of this site. Whereas it is fine for regular visitors. I would imagine that newcomers may not be able to pick up the best spots of BBC bias.
Personally, I would think that a ‘panel’ with the ‘best stories’- possibly supported by other media outlets, would be handy to new visitors who are just beginning to question the reporting by the BBC.
I appreciate that this site is probably done on a voluntary basis and I visit regularly as it is one of my favourite sites, but to attract new visitors and to demonstrate to more people that the BBC is biased would help with the ultimate aim of the privatisation of the BBC.
In its John Bolton fixation the BBC has been sedulously repeating the Dem party line, the criticisms, and has made no mention of what the Rep members of the Senate foreign relations committee have said in support of Bolton. Nor have they mentioned Bolton’s own replies.
Typically one-sided BBC coverage. Bolton=Bush nominee=Bad.
Meanwhile the press is reporting that the US may soon be able to pull 40,000 troops out of Iraq. But Caroline Hwley carries on in her miserable way – miserable face as well as miserable whining tone. She simply lacks the gravitas and experience to be reporting on such major issues. She is a damn amateur. But a top Beeb reporter.
Does John Simpson do any wortk these days ? He costs about half a million a year to keep afloat – where is he ?
I can’t source the URL for this offhand, but I recall reading last year that the BBC’s average UK viewer – i.e. market – share is about 25%. It is largely those who are in that 25%, I guess, who regularly repeat the BBC’s propaganda about how wonderful the BBC is – saying, in effect, “I think the BBC is great value, therefore others should be happy to fund it for me.” In fact, many even argue that the BBC is ridiculously cheap.
The answer, I think, lies in this assertion. If the BBC is indeed cheap, those who argue for it will surely not object if the licence were to be made voluntary, and its cost quadrupled. That 25% alone could then continue to buy a licence, which will raise for the BBC pretty much what the current one does.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can switch it off and spend the money on something comparably balanced and informative, such as a subscription to Al-Jazeera.
£450 or so a year compares favourably with packages from Sky. It’s a win-win: the rest of us don’t have to fund the BBC any more, and those who do appreciate it can enjoy that warm and virtuous feeling the BBC thinks we should all get from paying more tax.
John In London,
According to Private Eye, John Simpson’s real name is John Fidler-Simpson. They have printed a number of arch articles over the years, broadly hinting that he was originally rather well-named.
TCC
the_camp_commandant
good idea, al jazeera certainly sounds no worse than what we have now and may be cheaper.
Radio 4 Today Program, item on the EU Constitution and the possibility that France may vote NON!
here is Jim Naughties introduction,
“……what is the problem here? why is it that there seems to be a majority, er, that want to say no despite all the efforts of Chirac….”
again Naughtie sees intransigent and single minded people, who have made a free choice, in a free country as a “problem”, this Goddamned Democracy stuff just isnt working is it Jim!
Big Government, Small People. Just how the Stalinist BBC Likes it.
I feel sick again……………
JiL “Does John Simpson do any wortk these days ?”
I don’t know about Simpson but many BBC hacks were at the Conservative press conference. Question after question came from different BBCpersons.
The excellent Michael White (Guardian), showing his usual puckish wit, thanked the platform for taking more than 1 question from a non-broadcasting organ.
Questions on rooting out governement waste should really have touched a nerve with the assembled BBC hoards. But I don’t suppose they noticed any connection.
To Camp Commandant –
25% viewer share is not necessarily in conflict with 80% wanting public service. Those 25% viewing at any one time could easily translate into
75% of the public if people only spend one third of their time watching public service TV.
But also – don’t forget the listeners – Radios 1,2,3, 4 and 5 combined are pretty popular.
David
Pete London –
So are you saying that nothing shoudl ever be funded through levies or taxes and that every service should be paid for through direct charges?
Do you apply the same logic to public libraries – people obviously enjoy going to them so they would be prepared to pay for them wouldn’t they?
If you do, you are being consistent but foolish. If you don’t, you are being inconsistent but not completely in orbit it would seem.
David
I seem to recall from the polls that a clear majority think that the BBC is a good thing, but that people are pretty much equally divided between subscription, advertising and licence fee as to how to fund it.
I suppose that depending on your point of view you could argue that two thirds of the country are fed up of the licence fee or that most of the country wants the BBC and there’s no accepted better way to fund it.
Unions at the BBC are to ballot their members on strike action over plans to cut up to 4,000 jobs after talks with management broke down.
Bectu, the National Union of Journalists and Amicus said the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, had failed to meet their demand that there should be no compulsory redundancies.
Bwwaaaahahahahaha!
The Grauniad, naturally
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1458504,00.html
Digital only broadcasts will put the “no accepted better way to fund it” argument to sleep within a few years it seems Cockney.
10 % of the license fee goes on collection revenue for the TVLA (crapita).
Subscrition over digital would cost FAR less.
If the BBC is such a good idea, why does it need to jail people to continue?
OT. Anon. Good call about organising to seriously take on the Beeb. The people at Biased do a fine job with the time and resources available to them (of course, unlike Beeb drones, they can’t slop at the public trough), but you’re right about the need for a more systematic approach. I would go even further and say the people who regularly contribute to this site should set themselves some goals…ie., raising the consciousness of the British public, so that come the next election, bias in the BBC, and the criminalising of the weak and lowly, is one of THE big topics. In New Zealand and Japan enough members of the public said Enough! to force change in state broadcasting policy, and it can happen here.
David,
Agree re the 25%, my point was simply to illustrate the implications for the license if set by actual audience size. Any given BBC programme is funded 75% by those who aren’t watching it. Many are funded by people who never watch the BBC. You will search in vain on the BBC website for these sort of statistics.
A PPV system would work best and would be technologically feasible too.
My kid watches CBeebies, so I’d subscribe to that for her, but I wouldn’t pay £116 a year for the privilege, and certainly not £450. For that sort of money, there are better options – second hand videos off eBay, for instance. Either way, it’s a diet of repeats.
I think your libraries analogy is false because there are no alternative libraries run by private providers. If there were, and they were funded by — for example — a bookshop, a Starbucks, an internet cafe, and a kids’ playgroup all on site, I for one certainly would question why I also have to pay for a municipal library which I don’t use.
The problem with your comparison is that libraries provide something which is free, and which thus has to be funded somehow. If someone else came up with a way of delivering the same thing free without a tax bung, then the onus is on the public library to justify its existence, IMO.
David
Of course particular services need to be paid for via a general tax. I’m partial to bullets, bombs and other things which scare people who’d like to bring my nation down. Apart from the armed forces I can think of literally nothing which needs to be paid for via taxes. Name me just one service which can be provided better, more efficiently and responsively by the government than via private provision.
You’ll find that many of those Victorian public libraries were provided via philanthropic, private provision. When the State moves out of the way individuals are perfectly capable of managing their own little piece of society. This includes being generous. When the State intervenes and is generous with your money on your behalf people have a tendency to reach out less and hoard more. Look further and you’ll find much of what the Victorians left behind was not left behind by any government but by individuals. Lightly taxed, generous individuals acting from their own free will. Were you equating the BBC with public libraries, by the way?
Please tell me why the BBC should be funded via general taxation. Please tell me how politicising the funding mechanism will not result in political parties promising more and more tax to the BBC in exchange for more favourable publicity. Please also define this ‘public service’ broadcasting which devotees of the BBC cite. Let’s be intellectual about this. Define the nature of the hole to be left in my life without ‘public service’ broadcasting.
I have just seen a glossy new BBC bookshop in Kingston-upon-Thames, opposite the main department store/mall.
Empty, of course.
Way to go Pete! Stop the Beeb tax – after all the socialists went bananas over the Poll tax or was that because the Poll Tax would ahve meant they would have had to contribute as well? We need a rentamob for Smash the Beeb Tax….
David,
* My local (excellent) public library isn’t a tax-fattened hyena promulgating a centre-left ideology under a laughable guise of objectivity and impartiality.
* The librarians I come into contact with actually work for a living.
* I am not criminalised and persecuted if I don’t pay my fines on time.
* I agree with you their radio is good. In fact, anything the BBC turns its hand to is always technically superbly executed. But you would expect their radio services to be first rate given they don’t have to play Tile Warehouse ads every five minutes. You and I pay for their broadcasters to have the best of everything.
The bottom line is, if I don’t subscribe to the Guardian’s pov, I don’t have to buy it, I can buy the Times. If I want to watch TV I have to pay the BBC.
And that’s not right.
“If the BBC is such a good idea, why does it need to jail people to continue?”
Because people can like the BBC and like the idea of the BBC, but still try and not to pay for it.
I’m sure tax evaders of all types believe some or all of their taxes are used for services they believe in.
“Apart from the armed forces I can think of literally nothing which needs to be paid for via taxes”
This says more about your cognitive capacity than much else.
Unless you want a private police, fire brigade, ambulance service, judiciary, diplomatic service, intelligence services, customs and immigration that is.
Where I live we are already paying for a private police force in addition to the ineffective one funded through taxation.
Schools, hospitals, education, transport, broadcasting, and now policing are all areas where we have to pay twice – once for a shoddy state-provided product and again for something that actually works.
Just as important an issue as funding is exactly what we are being asked to fund.
This blog concerns itsef with the problem of the BBCs Institutional Bias in favour of Left Wing Metropolitain Points of View.
Once we have resolved the issue of fairness ( no taxation without representation )we can attack the funding issue.
Nasty right wingers!
On this day 13 April 1975
1975: Beirut street battle leaves 17 dead
At least 17 people have been killed and 30 wounded in an ambush by right-wing Lebanese forces on a bus carrying Palestinians in Beirut.
It goes on
Feelings among the Christians have been exacerbated by the arrival of Palestinian refugees, who have set up their headquarters under the leadership of Yasser Arafat in Beirut.
No mention of how come the PLO came to end up in Lebanon having been booted out of Jordan after trying to overthrow King Hussain. They’re widdle weffugees see.
This says more about your cognitive capacity than much else.
A master debater speaks.
Anyhoo
Prior to the war there were two private libraries in my town. Also I’m pretty sure that in Brief Encounter, Laura Jesson (Celia Johnson) takes her books back to the library which turns out to be a Boots store.
Funny that, I’ve just got off the phone to my ‘Community Police Officer’. That’s Officer, single. For a town of 6000 people. He volunteered for the post precisely because he wants to walk the streets, chat with people and get involved with the community. The last time he did the rounds was 3 weeks ago and has never had the time to do so unless by car. Everything you heard about paperwork and targets emasculating the Police he confirmed. In fact it’s worse than even I ever thought.
As for the NHS, I’ll have a chat about it with my ex-Labour supporting mate in the pub this weekend. He’s a fella who’s only alive because of his wife’s insistence that he get private treatment. This was after 4 days of the NHS doing everything they could to kill him.
Immigration? The residents of Arizona are beginning to understand what happens when the government is charged with defending your borders.
Anonymous, try to understnad that services which are provided now by tax will still be provided without tax. They will still be provided as long as people are allowed to spend their own money on what they want to spend it on and those services will be provided in a far more efficient manner than the state ever could. To say that the State should provide a news service makes as much sense as saying it should be responsible for making bread.
OT:
Notice that The Times continues to discuss the ballot rigging in Birmingham, with news that another 1,000 uncounted votes have just come to light (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1567781,00.html)
The BBC’s coverage has not been updated and seems limited to a ‘Have Your Say’ page, in which the following wholly irrelevant comment is given as supposedly reflective of ‘the balance of opinion we have received so far’:-
‘Tony Blair appeared to be a human being who happens to be a lawyer. Michael Howard appeared to be a lawyer who happens to be a human being: albeit described by one colleague as having “something of the night about him” and by another as having “something of the knife about him”.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/have_your_say/4411669.stm
So a fair number of people thought the key issue in a debate about Labour ballot-rigging here was not Labour ballot-rigging but the personal appearance of Michael Howard?
Yeah. Sure.
If the Beeb regularly uses ‘Tory’ to describe the Conservative Party, why does it have no sneering abbreviation for the Labour Party, the old Whigs?
Sorry to go OT,but don’t see how else to contact you. The Beeb does not seem to have any coverage of the MEP’s voting to keep the gravy train on the rails yesterday!
To be fair Radio 4 covered the MEP’voting to keep the ‘gravy train on the rails’ quite well in the Today programme this morning.
Malcolm, I thought the Whigs were the Liberals – the Labour party hadn’t been invented then.