UCL Conservative Society

I think it’s hardly fair to attribute the BBC’s dislike of our party to Labour’s recent actions. After all, this is the same BBC that’s been at open war with Labour since 2003: openly hostile to the government’s foreign policy, and fighting with Tessa Jowell over this year’s licence fee rises, to name but two examples.

No, the BBC’s problem is far more deep-rooted in cause, and goes back further in time than one cares to remember (the BBC was neutral in the Falklands War: when OUR country was invaded!). As with almost any publicly-funded organisation, it naturally stands left of the domestic political centre. We see this amongst other public sector workers, who are almost always (with the exception of the BMA) to the left of, and more militant than, their private sector colleagues.

“In 1997, I maintain, 70% of Labour’s victory was due to the support of Rupert Murdoch.” - Iain Martin

In 1997 Labour polled around 13 million votes. 70% influence of 13 million would leave Labour with a core vote of say 4 million. I find this very hard to believe.

In terms of coverage and influence - 70% influence of a Labour victory would seem extremely high for just Murdoch’s few newspapers and other organisations. I don’t believe he has ever had that much influence, and you give him far too much credit by saying that he does. How did you arrive at this figure of 70%? I find it impossible to believe that all other factors minus Murdoch only equate to 30% of what was the Labour 1997 General Election victory.

Oliver, if you think that the BBC has been “at open war” with the Labour party since 2003, then I think you are sadly mistaken. While the BBC has been hostile to the ‘Iraq war’ policy (because it’s full of anti-war ninnies,) they do not blame the Labour party but Tony Blair – who many of which consider him to be a conservative.

Over a very few individual issues such as the license fee, the Hutton report (which was very quickly forgotten) the BBC is anti-government or anti a certain individual rather than the whole Labour party. However, generally the BBC and its employees are supportive of the Labour party and the policies that are associated with that part of the political spectrum.

“If Labour moans about the BBC (and they do) and the Conservatives moan (and we are!) then that must indicate that we have a BBC that, while not perfect, is pretty neutral.” – Stuart Davenport

That is a complete repeat of what the BBC’s public policy seems to be. You’re not working for them are you? However, joking aside, the Labour party and supporters rarely complain about the BBC compared with Conservatives. I would recommend a good read of http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ if you don’t already. The BBC is certainly not neutral.

“Nick Robinson is a former Young Conservative and Jim Naughtie is a renowned Labour supporter so there is a fairly eclectic political mix at Broadcasting House.”

Their might be a mix – but a completely unbalanced one. The fact is though, Conservative supporters in the BBC are very much in the minority. This comes out in the majority of their reporting. Also, you use James Naughtie as an example – quiet apt, because just before the 2005 General Election, Mr Naughtie was broadcast as referring to a Labour victory as “when we win.” To my knowledge, Nick Robinson has never made such a similar comment/mistake.

“I would like to see revenue relate to viewing and listening figures not political posturing reliant on the Culture Secretary’s political strength at the time of negotiation.” – Stuart Davenport

And of course, we all know that the easiest way to achieve this is to privatise the BBC immediately (or as soon as possible.) That would mean that viewing figures (ie. the number of BBC subscribers who chose to pay for the service) would be of direct relation to their revenue.

I wouldn’t take Iain’s statement that “70% of Labour’s victory was due to the support of Rupert Murdoch” and can jump in with some simple arithmetic to disprove that statement. Elections are won by floating voters swinging behind you. In 1997 they swung behind Labour. This was due to many factors but it could be argued that a major factor (not sure 70% would be where I would place it, but I see what you mean) was the Murdoch press.

Your simple arithmetic doesn’t take into account the constituency mix of this country and also ignores the fact we have a FPTP electoral system.

You make a rather glib comment about privatising the BBC towards the end of your piece. I don’t think this should be an option. The BBC is able to remain above the commercial fray and offer material that wouldn’t be financially viable but is hugely worthy. The radio they produce is superb and the BBC website is, along with my Telegraph, how I start the day. We should certainly be inventive about how it is funded but not stamp on the central premise of its exsistence.

N.B. I notice my last statement regarding funding could be seen as contradicting my earlier statement but I think if funding is related to changes in market share in particular sectors over a time course my thinking makes more sense. This is in contrast to using raw figures to calculate funding which would be allowing a commercial element in which would spoil the BBC and contradict my earlier comments.

I like your office raises)