F1 going to Sky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

Cameron and Osborne had numerous meetings with the Murdochs before and after the election - indeed the very first person to meet Cameron as PM was Rupert Murdoch. The incoming PM described the prospect of BBC cuts as "delicious"; an ex-Conservative Party chairman was appointed as head of the BBC Trust and immediately declared that the public should expect savage cuts; the deal for the Murdochs to take full control of the BBC's biggest rival was about to be rubber-stamped by Jeremy Hunt, a man who despite having an impartial role described Rupert Murdoch as a great man on his website; we now know that in '08 that the Murdochs had a direct influence on the Conservatives' plan to top-slice the licence fee.

Maybe both major parties have, as you say, attacked BBC funding when it seems opportune. But the Conservatives are the only ones to actually cut their funding by dint of a licence fee freeze in the face of rising costs, and the desicion to make the BBC pay for the (previously government funded) World Service.

---

So Cameron met up with Murdoch several times, pre and post-election and smoothed over a business deal. How is that different to, say, Blair talking to Berlusconi to support a Murdoch business deal in Italy?

The great Murdoch conspiracy - Telegraph

I'm surprised that the serious pressure from the Labour party to keep licence fee increases to a minimum when it was reviewed under their rule seems to be forgotten, or that the Tory party would face intense criticism if the licence fee was increased while overall spending was slashed.

There are double standards at work here whether discussing the BBC or the NHS. I really don't see much difference between the behaviour of either party but some people seem too willing to overlook Labour transgressions and all too willing to criticise the Tories when they do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

There are double standards at work here whether discussing the BBC or the NHS. I really don't see much difference between the behaviour of either party but some people seem too willing to overlook Labour transgressions and all too willing to criticise the Tories when they do the same.

---

I don't see double standards but differences.

As has been said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I do believe that one significant difference exists in terms of the attitudes of the respective parties to the very notion of the existence of a publicly-funded public service broadcaster.

---

I agree and see that as a fundamental difference.

Also, while previous governments are far from blameless they are previous governments. Their decisions have been made and are in the history books, along with those who made them. That doesn't mean they should be ignored or forgotten, but it is more important IMHO to deal with the here and now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

So Cameron met up with Murdoch several times, pre and post-election and smoothed over a business deal. How is that different to, say, Blair talking to Berlusconi to support a Murdoch business deal in Italy?

The great Murdoch conspiracy - Telegraph

I'm surprised that the serious pressure from the Labour party to keep licence fee increases to a minimum when it was reviewed under their rule seems to be forgotten, or that the Tory party would face intense criticism if the licence fee was increased while overall spending was slashed.

There are double standards at work here whether discussing the BBC or the NHS. I really don't see much difference between the behaviour of either party but some people seem too willing to overlook Labour transgressions and all too willing to criticise the Tories when they do the same.

---

Again, agreed, but would you not also concur that the Tories' underlying attitude towards the notion of a publicly-funded public service broadcaster is very different to that held by even the private sector-friendly Labour administrations of recent times?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I don't see double standards but differences.

---

I see people kicking up a fuss claiming the Tories are in bed with the private healthcare system and are privatising the NHS, seemingly unaware or unwilling to admit that the Labour party had done exactly the same.

I see people kicking up a fuss claiming the Tories are in bed with Murdoch and assisting them both by supporting their business deals and clipping the wings of the BBC, seemingly unaware or unwilling to admit that the Labour party had done exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Also, while previous governments are far from blameless they are previous governments. Their decisions have been made and are in the history books, along with those who made them. That doesn't mean they should be ignored or forgotten, but it is more important IMHO to deal with the here and now.

---

While that is true your initial post suggested that the decision made by the BBC to drop F1 was somehow linked to the Tories being in power, as if having a Labour party in office would have resulted in a different decision. I disagree, and I believe that the Labour party would not have allowed the licence fee to increase either given the downward pressure on all government spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Also, while previous governments are far from blameless they are previous governments. Their decisions have been made and are in the history books, along with those who made them. That doesn't mean they should be ignored or forgotten, but it is more important IMHO to deal with the here and now.

---

But the actions of those previous governments are of great importance when discussing anything to do with the Murdochs, not least because one is left with the inescapable conclusion that while Labour might be making some capital out of the hacking scandal at the moment, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that little would have been different had Labour been returned to power at the last election. After all, while a Labour PM would, like as not, not have employed Andy Coulson, a Labour PM did employ as his official spokesman somebody who was once the most loyal of journalistic lieutenants to Robert Maxwell. I don't see an awful lot of difference there, except that Maxwell was long dead by the time Blair came to power with Alastair Campbell at his side.

The difference comes in the fact that Labour, despite their desire to cosy up to the Murdochs, are not ideologically opposed to the notions of public funding and public service that are central to the BBC, whereas the Tories at heart are. That the Tory position on the BBC is inherently contradictory in many ways — as Ian Hislop pointed out, the Tories and readers of the Tory press love all the things the BBC, and only the BBC, does like Today, The Archers, the costume dramas and so forth — is perhaps a matter for a separate discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Again, agreed, but would you not also concur that the Tories' underlying attitude towards the notion of a publicly-funded public service broadcaster is very different to that held by even the private sector-friendly Labour administrations of recent times?

---

I haven't yet seen the Tories attack and discredit the BBC to quite the extent that the Labour party did, particularly at the time of the Iraq war. Not that I'm defending the Tories, I do not know how they would have behaved in a similar situation with the BBC broadcasting an inconvenient view of government policy.

I also don't see the importance of looking at 'underlying attitudes' when there are actual policy decisions to look at. I just don't see how any government could justify allowing a rise in licence fees (which many media outlets particularly on the right portray as a form of tax) when entire ministries are seeing budgets slashed by up to 10-15% with thousands unemployed as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I haven't yet seen the Tories attack and discredit the BBC to quite the extent that the Labour party did, particularly at the time of the Iraq war. Not that I'm defending the Tories, I do not know how they would have behaved in a similar situation with the BBC broadcasting an inconvenient view of government policy.

---

How they would have behaved is quite clear from the Falklands war, when Thatcher herself accused Peter Snow and Newsnight of being 'anti-British' or some such nonsense. So, you are quite right to suggest that, in certain circumstances, there would have been no difference at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I also don't see the importance of looking at 'underlying attitudes' when there are actual policy decisions to look at.

---

I think they are important in terms of understanding why people feel — misguidedly, perhaps, but genuinely — that there is an added sense of danger inherent in the Tories' closeness to the Murdochs, when compared with Labour's. This is certainly something I feel, for one, in spite of Labour's own indefensible record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I think they are important in terms of understanding why people feel — misguidedly, perhaps, but genuinely — that there is an added sense of danger inherent in the Tories' closeness to the Murdochs, when compared with Labour's. This is certainly something I feel, for one, in spite of Labour's own indefensible record.

---

And do you feel that the Tories are inherently closer to the Murdochs, or that the Murdochs simply get close to whoever looks as if they'll be gaining power and that the Tories have had power for longer over the past three decades?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

And do you feel that the Tories are inherently closer to the Murdochs, or that the Murdochs simply get close to whoever looks as if they'll be gaining power and that the Tories have had power for longer over the past three decades?

---

Both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Both.

---

Fair enough. Its impossible for an outsider to identify the difference. My feeling is that the latter is a more important factor.