Another malevolent aspect of the BBC is what I call the ratchet effect. In essence, the BBC uses its media bully pulpit to force political debate ever leftwards. There’s a good example of this on Today this morning in the prime time 8.10am slot. The issue being discussed is the proposal by government to introduce minimum prices for alcohol in England and Wales. Now those of us who are more libertarian minded may conclude that it is no business of Government to be interfering in the free market and setting prices but obviously the BBC is in favour of such overt authoritarianism. So listen to the “debate” it frames between Sir Ian Gilmore (in favour of government setting such minimum prices but they must be higher than currently prescribed) and Gavin Partington from the Wine and Spirits Trade Association. I felt really sorry for Mr Partington who was sneered at by the BBC presenter and interrupted by the execrable Gilmore. The Coalition may be moving to accommodate the BBCA agenda on this issue, but instantly the BBC ratchets it further to the left. Government control of beer and spirits? Yes, but it needs to be higher..always greater..always MORE.
NEO-PURITANISM ON THE LICENSE FEE
Bookmark the permalink.
The bbc position on this, is rather like their position on being found to have discriminated against an old girl no longer presenting countryfile. They aren’t remotely bothered about the fact their presenters are ignorant of the countryside, only that they have been guilty of the D word.
They couldn’t care less that thousands of pubs and small shops are forced to close, thus immeasurably damaging smaller communities, because ghastly places like tesco & asda target them with subsidised booze. They are only concerned that the proles aren’t doing what the medical wing of the chattering classes think is best for them.
The overdoing of too much drink has been part of our world since man first discovered the stuff and the human race is still here and still thriving it only takes a glance at goggle to see the chatting classes always blame the availability of drink to the poorer as the problem , but what about the Labour reforms ??? that broke up the network of small backstreet pubs we used to have and allowed unlimited drinking at all hours? maybe because the same group of our betters voted for the pillocks who really buggered things up !.
Bit embarrassed me thinks!
Don’t think the word “embrrased” figures in the world of Labour and its supporters.
Or even “embarrased”
An attempt to do something similar up here north of the border was recently defeated – but only for party political reasons and I’m sure it will be back after this year’s Scottish elections when my fellow citizens with very short memories put Labour back in power.
What really pi**es me off is that the answer to a problem is never to target directly those who actually cause the problem, but to inconvenience everyone in the name of “doing something”. This is an angle I can’t recall the BBC ever taking. No, they always invite on the “expert” to say that the government isn’t doing enough.
Unless it’s something the Beeb disapproves of, such as NHS reorganisation. In which case the Government is doing too much, and it’s talking heads from that side of the argument who are invited on.
Gilmore used his last words to assert that the science is in and it’s incontrovertible and the only pity is that the minimum price is not set higher. It reminds me of another issue where, according to BBC “journalists” and the BBC’s carefully selected pseudo-scientists, the science is in, it’s incontrovertible and, more to the point, there’s a “scientific consensus” (although even Gilmore didn’t have the brass neck to use the phrase – perhaps he would have done if he had remembered this golden phrase used to shut down any debate).
Similarly the BBC gives its imprimature to the “higher prices=less binge drinking” mantra. Again, the “impartial” “news” preceding the discussion today was nuanced such that we were informed that although the government has announced a (BBC approved) policy the real news is that there is a storm of criticism to the effect that the policy doesn’t go far enough. Then, as night follows day, the unchallenged background “fact” established for the discussion is indeed that the policy is not draconian enough.
Consequently, as with the interview with Cameron yesterday re the NHS, the BBC selected villain (this time Partington) started on the back foot and the “debate” went down from there. The BBC just doesn’t care any more. It is completely out of control. The coalition has guaranteed its income for the next, what, 4 years, and there’s no forseeable threat to the continuation of the BBC as presently constituted: it’s “steady as she goes” and she keeps going left.
“The BBC just doesn’t care any more. It is completely out of control. “
That is one of the most accurate comments made on here. It is totally out of control as the leftwing loonies at the top don’t even want to control it, and wouldn’t know how to if they tried.
Boaden and her fellow narrow-minded extremists, no doubt, see this as a good thing – allow the news reporters what they want to say and bugger the truth. Freedom of expression is obviously, in her Orwellian Newspeak world, what she calls impartiality. But as they only employ those who are openly hard-left-wing, their “Freedom of expression” is always expressed from the neo-SWP point of view.
I heard this as the lead item on the 6am Radio 4 news this morning. To be honest I turned it off as soon as I could as its just all so depressing. This cobblers i.e the state nannying brought about by fake charities and a dodgy University study then leaked to the Beeb is straight out of the Nu-Lab playbook and I thought we had got rid of those buggers.
Mainly though this isn’t going to happen as its illegal under EU law ..
http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2011/01/18/what-part-of/
as you would have thought the Beeb would have realised. My guess is that the Govt know this but are using it to move the agenda away from the NHS. In other words the Beeb is being played like a fiddle.
Thanks for the link i just loved this bit=
‘2) A much more depressing idea: knowing that they can never actually gain their goal they also realise that it’s a great campaigning goal. So they can continue forever to campaign, be important, be given money, but never actually achieve the end which will make them redundant?’
Fantastic !!
Talk about double standards at the BBC, they have been using Booze, not as a lost leader, but free and as much as you like in their many Hospitality suites for years now.
If they wish to persue their moral high-horse ground on this issue then perhaps they should start charging premium rates for liquor when entertaining their guests and give them the bill on the way out.
A Government funded broadcaster is always going to favour higher taxes.
Hmmm if the beeb gets it’s way does that mean the champers they will fill the corridors with after the new red ED dawn arrives [well as soon as the beeb can fix it with the unions of course] will cost us more ??
I think the BBC, and many others are missing the point about this whole issue. We are not living in a total free market economy and so there must be some regulation of the wilder aspects of retail trade to prevent distortions of the market.
Allowing the changes in licensing which in turn allowed greater sale of alcohol by supermarkets has allowed a distortion, in that the supermarkets are so big they can afford to sell for less than they buy.
This causes both a social and an economic ill.
1) It makes it economically sensible for the person going out or a night on the town (especially the young person), to preload with alcohol – for a tenner four 18 year old can get seriously slaughtered. This is a social policy distortion as it encourages bad behaviour, and makes it more difficult or licenced premises to control behaviour. It also puts pressure on the police and NHS.
Before the changes to licensing hours it was dificult to obtain cheap booze at late hours – if you were thrown out of a pub you couldn’t get booze elsewhere easily.
2) It causes an economic harm. Pubs and licenced premises are going out of business in terrible amounts. They create more wealth than the supermarkets in small communities, who only really compete with each other on booze- (we’d all still buy our groceries somewhere and they sell booze at a loss). This distortion is not about free trade, it’s about large corporations taking undue advantage of their market position in non alcohol retail to push compete unfairly.
Social and business policy was once that pubs should be protected from unfair competition so that they could effectively regulate drinking, because it was not in their interests (and indeed illegal) for them to encourage public drunkenness.
Now I understand that the BBC’s position is usually one of ‘State first’, but if this measure actually returns power towards the smaller trader, the publican, the off licence then maybe it helps to discourage an economic and social ill.
Kinda intrigued as to where the fluid in the bottles quoted as strewn across the corridors by Ms. Garvey in the panel, top right, ended up?
Maybe if it’s free to staff it is reclassified as ‘unique’, and therefore doesn’t count?
It is all very well for highly paid Beeboids who can easily afford their booze and probably charge it to expenses. But how about the poorly-paid working classes who like to enjoy a few harmless pints down the pub ?
Don’t the Beeboids care about them ? Stupid question really.
I caught a bit of the interview with Mr. Partington on R4 news at 1 and the female Beeboid was treating him as if he was a baby-killer !
The lousy BBC’s fawning support of ‘minimum pricing’ stinks like three-week-old tramp’s piss for a number of reasons:
1. The measure doesn’t target yobs it targets ordinary drinkers. It will not affect the appetite for champagne at Ascot’s Royal Enclosure or the consumption of vintage port in gentlemen’s clubs.
No-one in the Lords will be forced to go without that second bottle of Chateau Leoville Lascases 1955 2eme Grand Cru Classe St Julien. (Street corner yobs have a right to partake too, but if they cause trouble that’s a matter for the cops.)
2. It’s ineffective – if the price rise were enough to stop yobs from drinking super-strength cider they would simply move on to something else. Meths is still cheap. It’s essentially another tax for you and I to bear.
3. It’s an attack on individual liberty.
4. It’s bonkers to suggest that strong beers are a new invention. Carlsberg created Special Brew (urgh!) to commemorate a visit to Denmark by Winston Churchill. Bad Manners had a hit with a song about it a while ago.
5. Most irritatingly of all, this is nannying that would put Blair or Brown to shame. It’s none of the government’s effing business what adults do at home. With what we’ve had to endure, we’ve got every right to get hammered occasionally. If we end up in hospital that’s up to us – at least we pay our taxes, unlike footballers, media barons, company directors and the Guardian.
If the government is so against drinking let’s see them ban the subsidised bars in the Houses of Parliament and go to the country on a prohibition ticket. I agree with the Libertarian Alliance. Better Pissed and Free than Sober and Controlled.
Andy,
Splendid, just splendid !
If the Government don’t like people drinking alcohol, they should make it illegal. Otherwise they should butt out altogether. It is none of their damn business.
Why not have minimum prices for foods which increase cholesterol.
The politicians are literally barking mad.
Is it just me or does anyone else see not much difference in practice between the coalition and the last shower ?