Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

Again you have a point, but it was you that introduced into the debate us all having to pay for the licence fee and I was just pointing out that, in measurable terms, subscription via the licence fee costs around 48p per day (I can actually think of nothing offering better value) whereas daily subscription to the Daily Telegraph costs around 3.64 per day.

When you consider what the two figures entitle you to there really is no comparison and when you consider that the BBC, with all that it produces and a far greater audience, has had to make many fewer ‘corrections’ than the Telegraph - some were far from ‘minor league’ - then it is perhaps time to stop the BBC bashing.

As regards the Trump matter specifically. I totally agree with their stance today. Apologise for the clumsy, unprofessional, slightly misleading and foolish editing, but tell him to go to hell (albeit politely) as far as recompense for reputational damage is concerned.

The key words are ?have to?. Unless one is particularly sneaky in avoiding all the transmission types that require the license fee to be paid, or is happy to break the law, then the license fee is pretty much compulsory, which of course is not the case with the Telelegraph or any other newspaper. Therefore I and many others feel there is a greater duty of care/ higher bar for BBC. You clearly feel it is reaching that bar, I, and after increasingly (popular phrase alert) fact checking things I have a personal doubt about, do not. I?m nowhere near thinking BBC has an overarching ?agenda? beyond impartiality but there are clear areas where some sort of influence is applied which skews the message. The recent leaked report confirms that but imo it only scratches the surface in examples given. Just my observation

[ramAnag]

The key words are ?have to?. Unless one is particularly sneaky in avoiding all the transmission types that require the license fee to be paid, or is happy to break the law, then the license fee is pretty much compulsory, which of course is not the case with the Telelegraph or any other newspaper. Therefore I and many others feel there is a greater duty of care/ higher bar for BBC. You clearly feel it is reaching that bar, I, and after increasingly (popular phrase alert) fact checking things I have a personal doubt about, do not. I?m nowhere near thinking BBC has an overarching ?agenda? beyond impartiality but there are clear areas where some sort of influence is applied which skews the message. The recent leaked report confirms that but imo it only scratches the surface in examples given. Just my observation

I recognise your own restraint but it seems to be open season on the BBC at the moment and has been for a while. The usual suspects, i.e. various politicians on the Right are all queuing up to have a go, aided and abetted by certain sections of the public who are outraged by the behaviour of people from Savile to this latest Radio 1 DJ.

For me, the BBC does a damned good job - especially for the less than 50p per day it costs us - and usually remains as impartial as possible. A corporation of such size cannot be blamed for the behaviour of a tiny minority of employees anymore than the NHS is to blame for the behaviour of Shipman or the Education Secretary for the behaviour of one dodgy headteacher.

I believe that the current attacks on it are entirely politically orchestrated.
Did it make mistakes? Yes.
Did it make mistakes which justify the current levels of criticism or Trump’s threat to sue for a vast amount of money? No.

[Andy_Faber]

I recognise your own restraint but it seems to be open season on the BBC at the moment and has been for a while. The usual suspects, i.e. various politicians on the Right are all queuing up to have a go, aided and abetted by certain sections of the public who are outraged by the behaviour of people from Savile to this latest Radio 1 DJ.

For me, the BBC does a damned good job - especially for the less than 50p per day it costs us - and usually remains as impartial as possible. A corporation of such size cannot be blamed for the behaviour of a tiny minority of employees anymore than the NHS is to blame for the behaviour of Shipman or the Education Secretary for the behaviour of one dodgy headteacher.

I believe that the current attacks on it are entirely politically orchestrated.
Did it make mistakes? Yes.
Did it make mistakes which justify the current levels of criticism or Trump?’s threat to sue for a vast amount of money? No.

I agree for the most part it does a good/great job, and agree its currently being ganged up on, possibly for small p political reasons. My observations, which originated before the recent raising of heat on the Corp are that some of the BBC's mistakes aren't mistakes but the product of a culture and I'm guessing we'll have to disagree on that point

Trump is being a bit of a twit though

[ramAnag]

I agree for the most part it does a good/great job, and agree its currently being ganged up on, possibly for small p political reasons. My observations, which originated before the recent raising of heat on the Corp are that some of the BBC's mistakes aren't mistakes but the product of a culture and I'm guessing we'll have to disagree on that point

Trump is being a bit of a twit though

Have to disagree about the ‘small p’ and fear it’s very Political indeed.

I honestly think it’s very difficult to always remain entirely impartial. How for instance does one remain completely impartial when reporting on such issues as paed*phillia, brutal murder, rape, domestic/child abuse, terrorist bombings, starvation or, for that matter, the aggressive speech of an aggrieved recently deposed leader?

It is good to have a constructive and respectful exchange though even though we disagree on some aspects of this issue.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Has Starmer bowed to pressure and resigned then? Must have missed it when in hospital yesterday

[ramAnag]

Has Starmer bowed to pressure and resigned then? Must have missed it when in hospital yesterday

No, GP, sorry to hear you’ve been hospitalised. Hoping only as an outpatient. Anyway you’ve missed nothing.

Don’t really ‘get’ all the anti-Starmer stuff. I see the bookies are keen on supplying odds for his replacement, but realistically, what difference will it make? We’re in a mess. We’ve been in a mess for years, but it’s not a mess of Starmer’s making. He might not be the most charismatic, but he seems to have more integrity than the vast majority of his recent PM predecessors or wannabes.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So far as I can see the Starmer out noises are coming from within the party - perhaps because he is too centrist?? Ironic in that those on the right-centre right want him out because he's ineffective and doing nothing to live up to election promises (shock horror, never seen that before) and those left-centre left want him out for ? being too far right?

Either way he's stuck between a rock and a hard place, arguably satisfying noone. His home secretary's action on illegals and the chancellors upcoming budget will determine his fate I guess. He'd better pray they satisfy "noises off", otherwise he'll be back in my local pub nursing a pint and being ignored as a non entity there as well.

Something about him reminds me of the Spitting Image version of John Major (but without the charisma)

[Geoff Parkstone]

Hospital was more cancer treatments so a long day but not kept in, so thankfully not exposed to hospital food. Just lots of tea, ginger biscuits and a charming Filipina nurse. The NHS is a gem - he says days before the doctors go on strike. We all are so lucky to be having boatloads of doctors (and engineers) arriving daily to strike-bust.

[ramAnag]

So far as I can see the Starmer out noises are coming from within the party - perhaps because he is too centrist?? Ironic in that those on the right-centre right want him out because he's ineffective and doing nothing to live up to election promises (shock horror, never seen that before) and those left-centre left want him out for ? being too far right?

Either way he's stuck between a rock and a hard place, arguably satisfying noone. His home secretary's action on illegals and the chancellors upcoming budget will determine his fate I guess. He'd better pray they satisfy "noises off", otherwise he'll be back in my local pub nursing a pint and being ignored as a non entity there as well.

Something about him reminds me of the Spitting Image version of John Major (but without the charisma)

Maybe what he shares with Major is an element of decency. I ridiculed him at the time but when you think of what we’ve had between 2016-2024 he would now be seen as a breath of fresh air.

I think the right of centre are disappointed at the lack of dynamic change and the left are disappointed at the reluctance to adopt a system of making the seriously wealthy pay their fair share or make any significant move towards greater equality. In the meantime those further to the Right and the wealthy just want to disrupt him - and therefore any move towards the Left and a fairer society - as much as possible.

Sorry to hear of your need for treatment. I believe it can be tough, but worth it in the end. Bit like tax rises.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'd agree with half of your assertion re taxes....needless to say the first half. Interestingly under the current system I believe that if you feed ?100 into the UK economy the government will have had all of it in under three iterations via income taxes, profits taxes, VAT, inheritance tax and perhaps capital gains. Oh yes and petrol, booze and fags taxes

[swaledale]

I'd agree with half of your assertion re taxes....needless to say the first half. Interestingly under the current system I believe that if you feed ?100 into the UK economy the government will have had all of it in under three iterations via income taxes, profits taxes, VAT, inheritance tax and perhaps capital gains. Oh yes and petrol, booze and fags taxes

MM and you try to call me out for making exaggerated claims!!

On your belief, no person or business in the UK is making any money then? Plus of course you ignore the fact that the tax raised is actually spent in the UK economy or to provide infrastructure and services which the economy depends upon.

But then we get the Head of Tesco bemoaning that employee NI and minimum wage increase are threatening the business, then Tesco publish half year profits up 1.6% at £1.67 billion and upgrade the profit forecast for the year to £3.1 billion!

Before you say it, I'm not saying they shouldn't be making a profit, just that moaning about Tax increases and then publishing better than expected profits does tend to look a tad like whining for the sake of it.

[Geoff Parkstone]

OK exaggeration, lets see

100 is paid to a normal basic rate tax payer to keep it simple. Lets call him Joe. Before it hits his bank account 30 goes to HMRC in tax and NI |(we will ignore the extra 15 of employers NI for now)extra `

Joe spends his net wages on essentials and whatever else he wants, and lets assume he doesnt save anything. So he gets hit for VAT on some of it, fuel tax, alcohol and tobacco taxes. Lets say half his spend is subject to VAT etc or other "purchase taxes" at an average of 20% - in reality the tax on fuel etc is a much higher element. But lets say thats 14. So iteration 1 gives HMRC 44% of that extra 100.

so those people who he buys from make a profit of lets say 50% on his 70 spend (less the 14 already paid in purchase taxes) and they too suffer base rate and NI on it and of course pay VAT etc on the goods they but to resell to Joe.... and the wheel just keeps on turning: more tax whenever anyone earns anything or spends anything. And god help you if you die.

the three iterations is not my figure but one I was taught in basic Economics 1.1. The tax multiplier effect

Where are the leaks? Savings perhaps but that usually leads to someone else borrowing and spending the laon and thus paying more tax on that perhaps. Money spent overseas will avoid the grasp of HMRC bit it also leaves the UK economy in entirety.

So actually increasing the rate of tax, or decreasing it, doesnt actually make a lot of difference to "who gets it" but rather effects how long it takes for them to get it. Charge more tax, get it quicker - you dont necessarily get any more but you may get it ibn different ways but with collateral damage on inflation, unemployment, savings strategies etc.

Now obviously its not that simple but it doesnt take long for ever amount of growth in the economy to cycle into the governments hands as tax. The only way to increase tax take overall is real growth in the economy, which of course is stunted by increasing taxes.

or borrowing. Which is the usual way forward seen by most governments of whatever hue, despite protestations that they wont increase it. Borrow and inflate away its true cost ?

PS I agree with you re Tesco who are exploiting both suppliers, employees and customers for ever growing profits - so too most big companies involved in the food industry. Much like the energy companies exploiting the fact that they trade in necessities, there is a need for moderation and control via tax system

[swaledale]

OK exaggeration, lets see

100 is paid to a normal basic rate tax payer to keep it simple. Lets call him Joe. Before it hits his bank account 30 goes to HMRC in tax and NI |(we will ignore the extra 15 of employers NI for now)extra `

Joe spends his net wages on essentials and whatever else he wants, and lets assume he doesnt save anything. So he gets hit for VAT on some of it, fuel tax, alcohol and tobacco taxes. Lets say half his spend is subject to VAT etc or other "purchase taxes" at an average of 20% - in reality the tax on fuel etc is a much higher element. But lets say thats 14. So iteration 1 gives HMRC 44% of that extra 100.

so those people who he buys from make a profit of lets say 50% on his 70 spend (less the 14 already paid in purchase taxes) and they too suffer base rate and NI on it and of course pay VAT etc on the goods they but to resell to Joe.... and the wheel just keeps on turning: more tax whenever anyone earns anything or spends anything. And god help you if you die.

the three iterations is not my figure but one I was taught in basic Economics 1.1. The tax multiplier effect

Where are the leaks? Savings perhaps but that usually leads to someone else borrowing and spending the laon and thus paying more tax on that perhaps. Money spent overseas will avoid the grasp of HMRC bit it also leaves the UK economy in entirety.

So actually increasing the rate of tax, or decreasing it, doesnt actually make a lot of difference to "who gets it" but rather effects how long it takes for them to get it. Charge more tax, get it quicker - you dont necessarily get any more but you may get it ibn different ways but with collateral damage on inflation, unemployment, savings strategies etc.

Now obviously its not that simple but it doesnt take long for ever amount of growth in the economy to cycle into the governments hands as tax. The only way to increase tax take overall is real growth in the economy, which of course is stunted by increasing taxes.

or borrowing. Which is the usual way forward seen by most governments of whatever hue, despite protestations that they wont increase it. Borrow and inflate away its true cost ?

PS I agree with you re Tesco who are exploiting both suppliers, employees and customers for ever growing profits - so too most big companies involved in the food industry. Much like the energy companies exploiting the fact that they trade in necessities, there is a need for moderation and control via tax system

Thanks for explaining that your assertion was an not only an exaggeration but false, its appreciated. Not that the tax system doesn't need reforming, its far too complicated and weighted against those who earn the least. Yeah and I did economics, Jeez, so many theories, so much BS!

Of course if you want to look at what a low tax economy looks like, consider the US. Where the richest country in the world has some of the highest levels of poverty and inequality. Still its the land of the free I guess.

Then for a high tax comparison, look at Norway.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ah yes Norway with it's two trillion oil fund who basically saved its surplus north sea oil profits for future generations of the people. If only we had had such foresight rather than spunking it all away. And what have we got to show for it? **** all. Bloody economic disaster

[MadAmster]

I refer TPFKARR to previous posts of mine on going trickle up rather than trickle down and the positive effect that would have on the economy. Less tax on the poorest 70%, more on the top 5% or 10%, all of whom wouldn't miss it.

Sales of goods and services up = more profit to owners and shareholders and more tax for the Treasury

Sales of goods and services up = increased demand creating new jobs, more money in more pockets which will increase spending, profits, dividends and tax revenue.

It will, of course, never happen because those who already have way more than they could ever spend want an even bigger share of the pie.