At a time when fewer young people watch live TV or any TV at all, and older people are concerned about the future of their free licences, it is now time to rethink, seriously, how the BBC is funded.
For people, like me, who also subscribe to a news package and can compare BBC News with a range of alternative, I now rarely, if ever, watch BBC News. Those who say the BBC News is the best in the world have probably not watched the alternatives available.
Much of my other TV entertainment is through subscriptions to Netflix and Prime, and while I can afford to pay for the licence, if I could not, I would understand more those struggling to pay it and campaigning to get rid of a tax on something they do not want, or use.
We all indeed pay lots of taxes for things we do not use but accept they are worth it.
The NHS is a good example, for many healthy people, and while those with no children, or children in private education, might object to paying for schools, most would accept that schools are necessary, as is the NHS. The BBC does not fall into that same category of being an essential service – anymore.
Possibly the way to answer the question about funding the BBC in the future is to answer the question, “Is the BBC still necessary in its present form?” If not, what are the alternatives and who should pay for what?
Producing high-quality drama, documentaries and news coverage does also happen elsewhere, and the wide range of radio, internet and other services provided by the BBC are also available at a cost elsewhere. People can choose when and if to subscribe to them. The question of the use of the BBC would become a secondary issue, if people wanted it to exist, whether or not they used it, just like the NHS.
Why then not merely fund the service through general taxation and scrap the licence?
It is not just the high salaries of celebrities that causes concern; it is the high number of executives, all earning much more than the Prime Minister that many questions.
One MP who stood down at the same time as me in 2010, went off to work for the BBC at a salary of £295,000, roughly double the salary of the Prime Minister today.
Does the Director of BBC England, the Director of BBC Wales, the Director of BBC Scotland and the director of BBC Northern Ireland and many, many, others at the BBC, all need to earn more than the UK Prime Minister? Should people struggling to pay other bills be forced to pay for those salaries?
Maybe the BBC has lost the will, or the ability, to develop as an efficient organisation and will continue to do so as long as the public continues to fund it through the licence fee.
Many Liberal Democrats are great supporters of the BBC and the licence fee, but times have moved on, and we should think in some more in detail about how, and if, those who presently pay the licence should continue to fund the BBC in the future.
* John Barrett was a Liberal Democrat Member for 40 years and is a former, Edinburgh City Councillor and Member of Parliament for Edinburgh West.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Andrew Tampion
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
57 Comments
Dragging people through the Courts for not having a TV Licence is pretty disgusting when you think about it. Time to put a stop to that .
This piece recognises that the writing is most certainly on the wall for the BBC. It is now (metaphorically) on its knees, begging the nation’s youth to watch its output. It won’t succeed. It has tried many times and always failed. Its audience is the old.
To even mention, in the same oped, the NHS shows how desperate its admirers have become and how close it is to its inevitable conclusion.
One saves lives, every day, the other makes shows where C list celebrities try and revive their hopeless careers by learning the cha-cha-cha or baking a Victoria sponge.
Spot the difference anyone?
Innocent Bystander – That is precisely why I mentioned it. I am no fan of the licence fee and believe the time has come to scrap it or replace it.
I mentioned the NHS to answer the point that when people often say, “why should I pay for something I don’t use” when in fact we pay for many things we don’t use, but accept they are worthwhile. For many this clearly will include the NHS but for many it will not include the BBC.
Both are effectively paid for by taxes in different ways, but as you say, the difference is stark and it is time to think again about how and if the BBC is publicly funded.
My apologies if my article did not make this clearer.
This is a big debate, but on the licence fee specifically I see no reason why non-payment should be a criminal offence. Non payment of council tax or water rates is a civil offence, so why should the TV licence be different?
The BBC executives, of whom there are legions, all exist within an elitist bubble where bureaucracy, waste, duplication and the avoidance of decisions provides an easy life with excellent remuneration.
The quality of the entertainment has deteriorated from world class to bottom of of the class. The news is full of evidence of bias, BBC agendas and complete oblivion and indifference to the needs and views of its audience.
The Corporation is now obsessed with climate change and broadcasts fake or flawed news on a regular basis while operating censorship in breach of its charter.
Once the jewel in the crown, now the BBC deserves to be shut down.
“Does the Director of BBC England, the Director of BBC Wales, the Director of BBC Scotland and the director of BBC Northern Ireland and many, many, others at the BBC, all need to earn more than the UK Prime Minister? Should people struggling to pay other bills be forced to pay for those salaries?” asks John Barrett.
Absolutely not! The salary structure in many cases reflects GROSSLY inflated valuations of people’s worth, and this includes most presenters or performers (IMHO). This has been so for as long as I can remember.
Funding it through general taxation would be even worse than the current model (which is also a tax, but at least one you can extricate yourself from).
There needs to be a wide ranging debate within the party and the membership about its future. Forget what the Conservatives’ position on it is, and ask yourself how liberal is it to keep the licence fee in perpetuity when fewer and fewer people watch live content (not necessarily even on a BBC platform), and it’s a massive drain on both court resources and some of the poorest people in the country.
The BBC by its slavish pandering to the “know nothings” in a desperate attempt to get them onside ( waste of time, they will just demand more) has alienated those it thought would jump to its defence. A hard lesson and one they may not survive. Still I’m sure all those at Question Time and their ilk will find roles ( not very likely they are not really commercial). Now what quote comes to mind, let me see
If you play with fire, you get burned
Its not just that the License Fee is Illiberal in principle, its the way its collected, the powers that those collecting it have & the way those without a TV are treated, being treated as Liars & Criminals until they prove otherwise.
I know theres Dr Who & Strictly but I dont get why some Libdems love the Beeb, its massively biased against us. Do I have to remind everyone of the “Debate” audience with no Libdem Voters ?
I dont mind a Taxpayer supported Fund to back Programs that otherwise might not get made but it should be open to any Broadcasters to apply for Grants.
Paul Barker 5th Feb ’20 – 9:40pm:
Its not just that the License Fee is Illiberal in principle, its the way its collected, the powers that those collecting it have & the way those without a TV are treated, being treated as Liars & Criminals until they prove otherwise.
They have no more powers than you or I. To gain access they need to be accompanied by a police officer with a warrant. When encountering ANYONE unknown at your door, first ask them who they are. Never answer ANY questions. Politely tell them to leave and close your door immediately. Any homeowner can legally remove the “implied right of access” to their front doorstep, effectively threatening to sue them for trespass if they continue to visit. I’ve not lived in a house with a TV for over 30 years. They send letters to the “legal occupier” about every three weeks. I never open them.
This subject definitely needs a proper debate rather than the knee jerk “national treasure” defence we got from the party on Facebook. It seems our role these days is to rush out populist soundbites rather than nuanced policy positions.
Gary Lineker “earns” a circa £2 million salary, while struggling pensioners are thrown into jail.
The BBC is obscene.
Innocent Bystander 5th Feb ’20 – 7:23pm……………….. Its audience is the old………….
That, alone, should be a reason for keeping it.
Widespread practice of using companies instead of salaries to avoid paying the top rate of tax, too. I think the solution is to decrease the license fee over time, forcing the Beeb to pay much more realistic salaries and go back to its core services (perhaps with advertising and/or subscription to some of its channels). It also has a huge stack of old programs that it can use to generate money.
You can imagine pensioners turning their heating off to pay for the license and hence the wondrous salaries some quite minor employees end up with…
I do value the BBC and the sheer quality of its programmes. For every Mrs Browns Boys (anyone? apparently it’s really popular) there are countless original dramas. And I don’t agree it’s all for the old. With a young family, CBBC and CBeebies (Hey Dougie is a personal favourite!) are way better than Tiny Pop et al. The quality of news and political coverage is IMO currently less good, with a flawed approach to balance and little proper analysis. But I do worry that if the BBC funding is taken away for them to become just another commercial broadcaster this would be a bad thing; I also believe the quality on other UK channels is raised by the BBC setting the bar reasonably high.
That all said I agree with this very good post; the current licence fee operates like a poll tax and, where a struggling family can pick up a second hand TV for next to nothing, the licence fee is a lot in comparison. Perhaps general taxation might be better?
Only about 30% of fines imposed for nonpayment of the BBC licence are recovered – see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388367/bulletin-July-to-September-2014.pdf
Forcing the BBC to take on the cost of the world service without fully compensating it (it means us) and stopping the payment of the fee to over 75s from government funds was a pretty blatant attack.
A lot of people are paid more than the prime minister – https://www.emolument.com/career_advice/prime_minister_vs_investment_banker_salary. The comparison is pretty irrelevant.
Perhaps we should be thinking of funding the BBC (and some other not for profit, public service media outlets) by a broadband tax or other tax on the distribution of news and entertainment.
HOW TO FUND THE BBC?
The best suggestion I’ve heard is that we should collect the licence fee via a precept on our Council Tax. What’s wrong with that?
John Probert 6th Feb ’20 – 10:01am………..HOW TO FUND THE BBC? The best suggestion I’ve heard is that we should collect the licence fee via a precept on our Council Tax. What’s wrong with that?………….
That what happens in France. If you don’t have a TV you just say so on your council tax form and don’t pay…
The BBC is a profit making entertainment business. It has only a nominal interest in being a public service. The idea that it should have legal powers to force anyone to pay it to access programs it doesn’t make on technology it didn’t invent or even sell is simply ludicrous
I don’t have answers as such, but I want to ask a couple of questions
1. Where do people currently get their news from? I am keen that we don’t descend into partisan news as per the US.
2. ‘Excellent output’ is very subjective. I have enjoyed access to DW documentaries (German state
-owned
@John Probert
While his politics were far from mine, Tony Benn could still make some very sensible points, as in his final speech in the Commons:
In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person–Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates–ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
If the BBC can levy a precept on our Council Tax and we have no means of getting rid of them that is undemocratic.
John Barrett makes a very good point in his article, why should we not just subscribe to the BBC channels that we want to watch. Anyone with a subscription to Sky, for example, can choose packages with different channels; why should my money go on cookery programmes that I never watch; If other people want them, then they can support them.
But, let’s be even more radical. Apart from the news (including weather) and live sport, how many other programmes need to be broadcast on a set schedule on a particular channel? If we all had fibre broadband (and that is just FTTC, not FTTP) we could simply watch BBC programmes over the internet using the iPlayer whenever we liked. This would make subscribing far easier and also offer options such as PayAsYouGo for low users.
I don’t have answers as such, but I want to ask a couple of questions/make a couple of comments:
1. Where do people currently get their news from? I am keen that we don’t descend into overt partisan news reporting as per the US.
2. ‘Excellent output’ is very subjective. I have enjoyed access to DW documentaries (German state-subsidised) on YouTube, but DW is also heavily criticised. What would excellent output look like?
3. Is there no role for some sort of ‘state’- sponsored viewing/news, that is, at least in theory, free to access/easy (as in, the charges are not up front, you don’t need a computer or the internet) and not commercially motivated? It concerns me that given the already apparent omnipotence of companies like Amazon, we should be encouraged to support them in yet another area of consumption.
A few years ago this debate could not have happened. What is striking is how few friends the BBC has left and how the prospect of ending the licence fee is almost taken for granted.
That does not mean the end of the Corporation at all. It will just move to a more honest relationship with its customers, like all other media providers have long dealt with. To move its funding to general taxation would be the kiss of death. When times get tough and govts have to choose between health, policing, elderly care and the infamous Mrs Brown there is no question of which will go.
Subscription funding is a better future for it. It is easy to administer (and is widespread already). It moves the service from broadcast to fast broadband (being rolled out across Britain) and that would free radio spectrum for ever more mobile and IOT applications.
A licence fee instills a sense of entitlement that leads it to pay ludicrous salaries to its executive and “celebrities”.
If the World wants a Service it can find its own. Our craving for this nebulous ” soft power” has created a dreadful sense of British Exceptionalism which has led us into this period of isolationism and low productivity.
So simply charge those who admire it to pay for it. They will control it with their feet (so to speak) and it will become smaller, healthier and no longer the target of endless criticism and attacks.
Colin Paine is right when he says the party rushes out soundbites without due discussion.
I at one time also thought the BBC was a treasure until I became involved in support for justice for Palestine and then watching other outlets I realised that the BBC does not adhere to its Charter to educate and inform impartially and is frequently biased by omission. The public should therefore be able to choose whether to pay to view.
As a pensioner who does not watch or listen to all BBC output but would be extremely disappointed to lose its unique contribution to our lives, I would ask all it’s critics to consider seriously why certain people in government want to control the way we lead our lives and receive our news which is more concerning than all the other arguments about the licence fee etc etc.
@ Laurence Cox: “If the BBC can levy a precept on our Council Tax and we have no means of getting rid of them that is undemocratic. ”
The BBC is a statutory corporation operating under royal charter (renewed every ten years), so what’s undemocratic? And when buying a newspaper would you grumble about having to pay for the sports//theatre/weather content? It’s all-or-nothing!
Maybe it is time for all people who do not pay their bills AND ON TIME to be prosecuted. Many who do not pay are not poor but rely on the fact that it is very expensive and time consuming for a small trader to recover his money. Not just ordinary people but big companies are notorious for delaying payment as they know some will give up the struggle eventually. You cannot get out of a supermarket without paying unless you steal things. People who do not pay for things they have obtained are stealing. Many of the people I know who do not pay the TV licence could afford to pay but think they will get away with it so they can use the money for other pleasures.
I agree there needs to be a determined effort to deal with the BBC’s costs but they do provide a service many people value. The obvious answer is to finance it by advertising like ITV with subscriptions for some things beyond the basic provision.
@Barry
There are many news channels in all known languages readily available. The BBC is just one. I am forced to listen to none but I am forced to pay for just one.
@Laurence
And I hope our democratic govt ends the iniquitous and indefensible licence fee. As to the newspaper analogy it is the equivalent of a £150 annual tax on all of us to pay for an advertisement free Guardian (or Daily Express) to be handed to us daily whether we wanted it or not.
There are a number of points.
The BBC pays well under the market rate for talent both on screen and for executives.
A “public good” – that is one where you consumption of it does not effect mine – is efficiently paid for in this manner. Two people can’t eat the same apple. They can view the same TV programme. Equally there are very few private toll roads and the roads are funded through a common compulsory subscription on users as until you get to the point of congestion, two cars can go down a road as well as one.
There are a vast range of services radio, particularly Radio 4, BBC orchestras, the website children’s channels without ads and that are not just cartoons etc. that you couldn’t really fund in a different way. Netflix etc. are more interested in funding shows for an international audience rather than investing in British culture. Very, very few good British sitcoms have been made by anyone other than the BBC. And I suspect this is partly because of how they are funded. The first series of Only Fools and Horses got a very low audience. The Great British Bake Off started with a small audience on BBC2. 19 out of 25 of the most watched shows of 2010s were on the BBC.
ITV is virtually wall to wall soaps and crime dramas but the BBC has a very much greater range of programming.
One is also “forced” to pay for public libraries whether one borrows a book or not, theatre and arts subsidies even if yo never go to a play, train and bus subsidies even if you always take the car etc. etc.
Be careful what you wish for! We may not miss the BBC until it has gone behind a paywall and then we’ll want it back!
Peter: “The BBC executives, of whom there are legions, all exist within an elitist bubble where bureaucracy, waste, duplication and the avoidance of decisions provides an easy life with excellent remuneration.”
I am sure that could be said for executives at other TV companies or any sort of enterprise. I don’t like the true elements in that statement any more than you but they are not sufficient reason to dismantle the BBC.
***
There are lots of reasons to have a go at the BBC. If you bundle them up together, there seems to be a compelling argument for radical change. If you separate them out, some things need fixing, some of which are beyond the BBC’s control.
BBC “fairness” preoccupies supporters of all political parties; may I be the 3,438th person (my approximation) to comment at LDV that those complaining about left/right BBC bias tend to counterbalance the other side. Lib Dems get a rough cut in BBC news output sometimes but BBC documentary and reflective broadcasting lean to the liberal view of the world.
***
As a child, I learned about the French protecting TV and cinema from English language programmes. At the time, I did not understand why their governments thought it necessary to limit imports. I get it now. When it does things well, the BBC creates new programmes about Britain and Ireland which touch on or reflect our national identities. Programmes work because three layers — content publishers, content writers/players and content viewers — want the same thing.
Some people argue that Netflix and Amazon produce great British telly — although the best appears to be rented from BBC and ITV catalogues. There is some great international content there too. And an awful lot of pap and homogenised drama designed to sell but never to challenge.
On the other hand, keep the license but except all households where the total income is less than 12k (with a hefty fine for those who lie), older people tend to avoid the welfare system where possible even when they only have the state pension as an income so linking it to things like pension tax credit would be unfair. The license authorities can cross check with HMRC on the income side of things.
No surprise that both council tax and tv license are the most hated taxes in the country.
Just let them get paid-for advertising. We already have self-advertising slots between programmes so it’s not going to be ground breaking for most viewers.
I like this idea: “I dont mind a Taxpayer supported Fund to back Programs that otherwise might not get made but it should be open to any Broadcasters to apply for Grants.”
Let’s go back to square one and identify what it is that the BBC is meant to be doing that other channels can’t or won’t do, and then (i) ask ourselves if we really *need* it to be done in the first place, and (ii) if we do, then incentivise commercial channels to do it instead.
How you fund the BBC radio services might be a bit more difficult, but perhaps we just don’t need so many stations? (and I certainly don’t know why we need so many versions of the same news bulletins).
I think the change in attitudes towards the BBC is simply that we have far more access to far more content provided by other providers to compare it against. What the BBC does is no longer special, unique or best in class so the value proposition has shifted against it.
Michael 1 has it spot on. There are people who would love the BBC to be cut down to a subscription only Guardian type service for small numbers of people while the majority have something like Fox News, made free by advertising.
Michael 1: “There are a vast range of services radio, particularly Radio 4, BBC orchestras, the website children’s channels without ads and that are not just cartoons etc. that you couldn’t really fund in a different way. Netflix etc. are more interested in funding shows for an international audience rather than investing in British culture.”
I wholeheartedly agree. It is naive to think that US-based TV streaming companies have a long term interest in creating British telly programmes. A UK setting might work well sometimes but the dialogue and attitudes might not be Scottish or Whatever. Whatevers should be concerned about how their dialect is respected. Perhaps everyone should speak in a slightly nasal non-location twang?
I do support the decriminalisation of the license fee and think that discussions into BBC’s funding are obviously quite necessary given the political attacks on the institution recently. Such funding, ideally, would take the feeling of a dangling sword of Damocles away: the BBC should be able to deliver critical or potentially controversial political content without fear of governmental attack. Although it does need to adapt its content delivery to the digital age and to change its approach to what it considers ‘balance’, I concur that there is still great value in having a non-commercial media outlet that can deliver quality home-grown UK content.
Right now, BBC One is still the most popular news source among adults, and the BBC in spite of a poor 2019 in terms of political coverage are still a trusted institute. Television and radio are much more trusted mediums than the internet and social media, even though younger folk increasingly prefer internet sources for their news. In the age of fake news and disinformation, we shouldn’t rush to gut out the BBC, lest a Fox News style propaganda network pops up in its place. Our instutitions must be able to hold those who would rule us to account.
Nvelope2003
Er, you can get out of a supermarket without paying! There is no exit or entry charge and you’re not forced to buy anything. They even let you take you’re pound out of the trolley when you return it. Also if all you want is a packet of Hob Nobs you don’t have to pay a yearly fee for other people’s shopping, not mater what quality the products claim to be, and as far as I know Tesco can’t levy one for the simple act of shopping anywhere else.
Mack: “I do support the decriminalisation of the license fee and think that discussions into BBC’s funding are obviously quite necessary given the political attacks on the institution recently.”
I don’t see the connection between ‘political attacks on the institution recently’ and ‘discussions into BBC’s funding’.
By definition, political attacks address the independence of the BBC. They must be discussed outside of any other roles of the BBC; a ‘political attack’ has to be treated differently from questions of taste or economics.
Those piling in on the BBC should pause to ask themselves what is going on here.
I think it’s a long-term campaign by the Conservatives to muzzle and tame the BBC by slowly moving the Overton window to demonise it to their own and some key backers’ advantage.
For starters, the licence fee and how it’s levied and enforced is down to the government, not the BBC. At the least they should make non-payment a civil matter as it already is in Scotland, not a criminal one as in England.
I would like to see reform go still further. The idea of adding it to the rates appeals – especially if it were also tied to rateable value. It would become a progressive tax while keeping it out of the government’s direct control.
I just looked up what Sky costs (we don’t have it); packages are “from £22/month” (£264 pa) over £100 more than the current £154.50 for a TV licence. But “from £X” is always sign of a sales trap; dig down and “latest offers”, start from £39/month (‘saving’ £52/month from some BS price). So, I’m looking at a cost of nearly £500 pa for the first upgrade.
So, it is massively to Sky’s and other rivals’ advantage to get their friends in government to neuter the BBC, attacking its financing and reputation at every turn but staying in the shadows. There is a risk of a stealth privatisation that would seriously harm poorer and otherwise disadvantaged folk that rely on the BBC for cheap entertainment. This is where the social contract rubber hits the road.
The BBC is a good example of the dual aspect of regulation. One the one hand there is the formal and published legislation, regulations, codes of conduct etc. which is officially where it’s at. In practice there’s another layer – that of raised eyebrows, veiled threats and leading questions about future jobs.
With a functional opposition, the BBC would balance between the opposing forces. Absent that, it’s highly exposed. In practice that means mealy-mouthed and uncritical news and comment, not embarrassing the government, freezing out dissenting voices and so on. If you want to see that go into overdrive just join in the government’s campaign against the BBC but remember, even in its rather compromised condition, the BBC is a major constraint on Sky etc. Without it, most would only know what Murdoch wants them to know.
I have just come across this thread and am amazed at the prevalence in it of BBC phobia. Only one poster – Barry Lofty – has pointed out the source of most of the anti BBC attacks and gently warned of the likely consequences of – in effect – destroying our national broadcaster. Like brexit, liberal and progressive people throughout the world would wonder what on earth the UK was playing at if this trend of thinking supervened. Of course the media world is changing and much must be reformed and improved in the BBC but I for one refuse to be dragged along by the trend towards utter negativity about an institution which has done and with good management still can do so much for our people and our international reputation.
Sorry Gordon. Your piece had not appeared when I launched into mine. I agree with every word you have written.
@Phil Beesley: I apologise if I’ve missed your point here. But by ‘political attacks’, I do mean via the Conservatives and the Bannon-inspired sort as opposed to a rise in specific complaints over political content (general bias, cenotaph incident, mishandling of Naga Munchetty incident, editing out of audience laughing at BJ etc).
In this case the economic and structural arguments are both inter-linked with the political attacks and are political in nature – on some level we democratically agree to the method of funding after all. The government is not pushing a subscription model argument, and being heavy-handed about wanting a say on who the next director general is, out of benign support for the institution.
The aggressiveness of the government’s rhetoric at the moment exerts a time-pressure in terms of sorting out a working solution for the BBC, if people care about its continued existence at all let alone independence. Once it’s gone, it won’t be coming back.
Sky costs just under £500 per annum even without the sport. Amazingly many people mostly watch the free view channels – BBC, ITV etc – although in some cases that is because of poor reception in certain areas such as a part of my town, though I need a good aerial and I have to have a landline to make a phone call without going to the top of the house. Who funds Freeview and who would pay for it if the BBC was privatised ?
As some have suggested all this is about putting money in the pockets of the Murdoch family at the expense of poorer people although many of them do seem to have the most enormous TVs in small rooms. Glenn has missed the point yet again.
I actually agreed with the last sentence of your earlier post which was advertising for basic BBC and subscription for the top end (Mrs Brown ??).
Do you still use a TV aerial? We watch everything on broadband and I am thinking of getting the aerial taken down. We never watch any broadcast stuff.
Freeview is advertiser funded but we have a set of subscriptions for just the stuff we want. For radio, either Heart or now we have a couple of internet radio setups and we listen to lots – Seattle, Melbourne, Austrian etc
Nvelope2003
You insisted that it was not possible to leave a shop without paying unless one was stealing. I pointed out that this is simply untrue.
Free view is the product of satellite coverage. I don’t think the BBC is funding CBS news, The Horror channel, various shopping channels, movies for men, the cartoon network or even Babe Station.
I can’t speak to televised BBC News as I only read it online, but I’m curious as to what the alternatives are that are better. I’ve yet to find a non-partisan alternative that covers the events of the day in a a neutral manner. I read articles in the Guardian, with the appropriate pinch of salt, and read the odd story elsewhere with other left and right takes, but having the basic coverage of events without the extremism from either side exaggerating and misrepresenting the issue through a partisan lens is incredibly valuable to me.
Ben Vail
The BBC is not primarily a news channel. It’s an entertainment empire. Wanting a news show does not explain it’s light entertainment spending, joint drama productions (often with other entertainment giants like Netflix), money spent on presenters, executive pay or anything much else. It is not spending the money on “news”. It is spending it on trying trump the viewing figures of commercial competitors. If we need an independent public news service, then why not drop all the commercial stuff, all the entertainment remits, all the competition for viewers and just fund that. Things like Mrs Browns Boys, Dracula, Doctor Who, Strictly and so on would find new homes pretty quickly.
The BBC seems to have gone out of its way to be provocative by packing the Question Time programme with Remainers ever since the referendum. Why has it knowingly done this – a death wish?
Innocent Bystander: Broadband in a rural area is not good enough though it has improved . I have to have an aerial even to listen to some radio programmes except when I am upstairs. When I consider what a wonderful thing the traditional wireless broadcasting is it seems a bit of a retrograde step to go back to wires, cables etc
How do the French, Americans etc and other foreign countries pay for the state broadcaster ? It seemed to be paid for by advertising when I have been abroad. I think the BBC is distinctly British and it would be a shame to get rid of one of the things that many foreigners admire. I have every sympathy for those who cannot afford to pay but payment could be made easier and those who can afford to pay for things but do not should suffer the same penalties as anyone who does not pay their tax when they could afford to do so. I know from experience what it is like to have to lose money to crooks who can afford to pay. It is no different from entering my house and stealing my money. Good luck to the builders who pull down the new conservatory when the “customer” has not paid !
It is worrying, much of this discussion is wholly inward looking “little Britain” – just like Brexit…
The BBC is a major player in the worldwide TV and film industry, commissioning and producing content that networks, streaming services and people around the world want to watch.
So in all this discussion of funding we would be well advised to consider the BBC’s worldwide audience and the jobs (in the UK) their monies can contribute to and how we might best secure the BBC’s place in the global market as an exporter of programming; particularly as from the end of the year the UK will be having to stand on its own two feet in the global market…
A real thank you for John Barrett, who might just get me to think this party deserves a go at ideas, so few in our leadership offer anything but status quo on issues the public feel very differently regarding.
The tv licence is an outrageous poll tax, worse, as it is unnecessary and the BBC could be funded by taxation for a slimline real public service.
Decriminalisation is fifty years too late but needs to be the norm asap for those who cannot pay.
The reaction to the excellent notion of a review by Baronness Morgan, by Head office of this party was pathetically knee jerk and old fashioned.
@nvelope2003
“How do the French, Americans etc and other foreign countries pay for the state broadcaster ?”
expats 6th Feb ’20 – 10:16am answered this regarding France – it is collected via local property taxes and requires action to opt out of the payment if one doesn’t use a TV
@John Probert
And when buying a newspaper would you grumble about having to pay for the sports//theatre/weather content? It’s all-or-nothing!
But when reading a newspaper online, I only read the articles I am interested in. My argument for newspapers is exactly the same as for the BBC; I should be allowed to read (and pay for) what interests me. So when a newspaper demands a subscription to read the whole of it online, I say that it is perpetuating an outdated business model. Newspapers should exist to aggregate journalistic content and act as a conduit for renumerating journalists through micropayments from their readers. So if I am reading, say, The Guardian I am happy to pay to read an article by John Harris, but not one by Owen Jones. Other readers’ views will differ and the journalists will be renumerated accordingly. The micropayment approach works for mobile phones, where calls, texts and data are all charged at different rates and you can choose plans to suit your usage; why should it not work for newspapers?
Incidentally, I do donate to one aggregator of journalistic articles: The Conversation https://theconversation.com/uk because so many of its articles, written by academics, are well worth reading.
Is this the same Laurence Cox who once posted “if you only read views you agree with, then you’re living in an echo chamber” on Mark Pack’s site ?
As for renumerating journalists, I suppose it makes a change from counting sheep to get to sleep.
@David Raw
I never said that I agreed with everything that John Harris wrote. What he does do is write about people outside the Metropolitan bubble and that is a useful corrective to the the views of the people that I do meet. On the other hand, I probably agree with Owen Jones occasionally, but then a stopped clock is right twice a day and I don’t gain anything from reading his articles. Perhaps if you had understood this you would not have made such an inane remark.
@ Laurence Cox. Thank you, Laurence. I now feel thoroughly renumerated, up to speed and enlightened.
My vote is also for a percentage of council tax paid, which would not only remove the need for Capita to be involved but also make the fee slightly more progressive.
Denis, Gordon and Mack,
You are all absolutely spot on. Once the BBC is gone, it’s gone! I’ve seen the alternatives available elsewhere and they don’t compare. Not for one moment have I ever wished that I didn’t have to pay the license fee. I’m sorry, but I still believe it to be good value.