11 ms·

They don't and never did. All that stuff was fought for tooth and nail by Labour over the course of the 20th century despite the elites. The BBC thing is much

by tonyg 4y ago

They don't and never did. All that stuff was fought for tooth and nail by Labour over the course of the 20th century despite the elites. The BBC thing is much more subtle.

ggm 4y ago
Primarily the victory election at the end of WWII where Churchill seemed to assume he'd be back in, in a landslide and he ignored the work being done by Labour memebers amongst the troops. There was a pretty solid army education corps which was (surprise suprise) dominated by left/labour leaning academics, and they put a lot of "why are we fighting" "homes for heroes" "make britain better for you" messages out. Labour got in on a landslide, Clement Atlee was elected to replace Churchill. The Beveridge report [0] was (partially) implemented. This was the birth of the welfare state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report
- LaundroMat 4y ago
  Choice quote from that entry: > "Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor." Plus ça change...
jollybean 4y ago
Controlling some narratives does not mean controlling them all. The BBC is not a clandestine operation, but does sometimes work with the government on special issues particularly for national security and/or in times of crisis. Even knowing all of this, it's still a pretty good news source actually. It's better than the Canadian CBC or US PBS/NPR in terms of 'objectivity' though those three entities do have some good qualities. BBC is nothing like Russia Today for example, or even CNN/Fox or major braodcast networks, all of which have different levels of relationship with government.

11 ms·

They don't and never did. All that stuff was fought for tooth and nail by Labour over the course of the 20th century despite the elites. The BBC thing is much

by tonyg 4y ago

They don't and never did. All that stuff was fought for tooth and nail by Labour over the course of the 20th century despite the elites. The BBC thing is much more subtle.

ggm 4y ago
Primarily the victory election at the end of WWII where Churchill seemed to assume he'd be back in, in a landslide and he ignored the work being done by Labour memebers amongst the troops. There was a pretty solid army education corps which was (surprise suprise) dominated by left/labour leaning academics, and they put a lot of "why are we fighting" "homes for heroes" "make britain better for you" messages out. Labour got in on a landslide, Clement Atlee was elected to replace Churchill. The Beveridge report [0] was (partially) implemented. This was the birth of the welfare state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report
- LaundroMat 4y ago
  Choice quote from that entry: > "Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor." Plus ça change...
jollybean 4y ago
Controlling some narratives does not mean controlling them all. The BBC is not a clandestine operation, but does sometimes work with the government on special issues particularly for national security and/or in times of crisis. Even knowing all of this, it's still a pretty good news source actually. It's better than the Canadian CBC or US PBS/NPR in terms of 'objectivity' though those three entities do have some good qualities. BBC is nothing like Russia Today for example, or even CNN/Fox or major braodcast networks, all of which have different levels of relationship with government.