The latest Hail Mary Pass to appeal to Captain Mainwaring.
The Government having reached an agreement for the BBC to increase its licence fee by the rate of inflation for several years in return for savings delivered previously, Short-Term-Rishi is going back on the promise for pure attempted politics - which are likely to fail.
The BBC fulfilled it's side of the bargain - a 2 year freeze, and Rishi is welching on the deal. What a miserable, untrustworthy, Scrooge-like Government we have.
At least their reputation is consistent, if that's what they want to reinforce.
Is anyone surprised?
I wonder, is this potentially subject to legal action?
It’s our money not the governments. Sunak is hardly being Scrooge, which is a tired Xmas cliche.
Whether the politics will fail or not is irrelevant. It is the right thing to do in a cost of living crisis.
I doubt it would appeal,to Cpt Mainwaring either. He’d be proud of the institution.
And it's for us as a country to decide what we wish to tax, and invest in our public realm and our future.
Rishi attacking the BBC has nothing to do with a cost of living crisis; when a few billion is needed to lubricate the base, it appears instantly. The BBC move is political, for appearance.
Personally I think a Prime Minister unable to be trusted is more concerning.
Scrooge is precisely the right comparison - a short-termist Government salami-slicing everything including basic services, and wasting untold amounts of resource along the way by failure to think beyond the end of their noses.
What happened to fixing social care, for example? Or transport expenditure?
FFS in the midst of the greatest security crisis for a generation, this lot have *cut* defence expenditure.
It's all about salting the Earth for the incoming government now.
Hence my suggestion Starmer abolishes the license fee. Defuses the issue.
Replaces it with what though ?
He can worry about the detail post election. ‘From general taxation’ works as a stopgap. A longer term solution requires a lot of thought, rather than being cobbled together.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
The BBC could also help fund drama and light entertainment via advertising
One of the channels, I think it is Prime, offers quite a number of its programs "free" with advertising or a premium service without advertising you have to pay for. This strikes me as a good model for the BBC.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
I suspect many parts of the globe have had enough of our values over the last 100 plus years. The Legacy of which persists to this day.
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
The latest Hail Mary Pass to appeal to Captain Mainwaring.
The Government having reached an agreement for the BBC to increase its licence fee by the rate of inflation for several years in return for savings delivered previously, Short-Term-Rishi is going back on the promise for pure attempted politics - which are likely to fail.
The BBC fulfilled it's side of the bargain - a 2 year freeze, and Rishi is welching on the deal. What a miserable, untrustworthy, Scrooge-like Government we have.
At least their reputation is consistent, if that's what they want to reinforce.
Is anyone surprised?
I wonder, is this potentially subject to legal action?
It’s our money not the governments. Sunak is hardly being Scrooge, which is a tired Xmas cliche.
Whether the politics will fail or not is irrelevant. It is the right thing to do in a cost of living crisis.
I doubt it would appeal,to Cpt Mainwaring either. He’d be proud of the institution.
And it's for us as a country to decide what we wish to tax, and invest in our public realm and our future.
Rishi attacking the BBC has nothing to do with a cost of living crisis; when a few billion is needed to lubricate the base, it appears instantly. The BBC move is political, for appearance.
Personally I think a Prime Minister unable to be trusted is more concerning.
Scrooge is precisely the right comparison - a short-termist Government salami-slicing everything including basic services, and wasting untold amounts of resource along the way by failure to think beyond the end of their noses.
What happened to fixing social care, for example? Or transport expenditure?
FFS in the midst of the greatest security crisis for a generation, this lot have *cut* defence expenditure.
Indeed, what happened to those issues. They need resolving too. Doesn’t make this move on the license fee wrong.
The funding of the BBC is anachronistic in the modern era. It is time they looked at how the BBC will be funded in future.
Fund true public service Tv and the distribution network from General taxation and let the BBC raise funds how it chooses in a commercial model outside of a license fee.
The BBC (well, a part of it) fought desperately to prevent the switch to digital TV including encryption.
The sad bit is they could have boldly made a case to move to take control of world wide rights and sell a world wide “License”. With online distribution, every market is open. My guesstimate is that the income from the USA, alone would be of the order of the current license fee.
The final step would be free BBC for anyone in the U.K.
Brand BBC would be world wide. Reinvigorated with new money. And, for the first time, utterly independent.
Sadly, we lack the politicians and broadcasters with the vision to make such a future.
It does seem pretty obvious that a BBC supported in the UK but free to rake it in abroad could become one of the world’s biggest media giants, with similar reach and dominance as Disney.
Indeed Disney is to American soft power what the Beeb is to British soft power.
Profitable globally, subsidised at home, the opportunities are endless. Of course that wouldn’t stop it being a political football, as Disney’s recent experience shows.
Disney is not free or subsidised in the US, as you are suggesting the BBC could be. Disney+ is still operating at a substantial loss. I’m not certain the figures stack up here.
Even if you kept the domestic cost of the BBC the same as now, with no subsidy, it would do far better if it were allowed freedom to be an open subscription service globally, rather than in most cases being limited to licensing its content (and for example not being able to make normal BBC iPlayer available for a fee to Brits abroad). That extra income could then either go into subsidising the licence fee, or investing in more programming.
The BBC rarely owns any of the overseas rights to the programming it shows in the UK. Those are usually sold separately by the production company, usually to Netflix or Amazon for far, far more than the BBC could afford. The BBC also very rarely produces anything of note in house now, most of it's hit shows are produced externally, which is a consequence of longstanding policy by the BBC to underinvest in it's own production capability and overpay on screen talent for live shows.
It’s a consequence of BBC reforms pushed by Conservative governments to break up the BBC’s own production capability and introduce greater competition.
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Also a bit rich from a regularly self proclaimed ‘alpha’. Maybe you touched a nerve.
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
Envy of the world and something to make you feel proud.
The BBC should be funded by a hypothecated tax on internet and social media giants. That is my surprisingly mild mannered, social democratic opinion of the morning
See the Times has published its annual ranking of schools in its Parent Power supplement. Especially useful for parents planning their escape from the private sector and impending VAT on fees.
@HYUFD is adamant that such parents won’t touch with a barge pole a state school that is not Outstanding according to OFSTED. Looking forward to see what happens in North Yorkshire where there is a single Outstanding state secondary school which is already well over-subscribed.
Delighted to see the Times nominate a school in Hull as Comprehensive of the Year. Partly because St Mary’s College is in my home town but mainly because Peach Junior is on the SLT there.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
Envy of the world and something to make you feel proud.
I'm going to break the habit of a lunchtime and agree with @bondegezou
Like it or not, the BBC does project an awful lot of soft power for the UK. It is respected abroad in a way most people - who don't travel much - do not realise. You can go to a war-torn or miserable part of Asia, Africa, wherever, and the BBC is viewed with great respect, more than almost any other British (or indeed European) institution, and more than any other media corporation
This is PRECISELY why so many other countries try to copy it. France, Russia, Iran, Germany, China, Al Jaz, they all try to do versions of the BBC (often in English) with various degrees of success, but rarely quite as well
If I was UK dictator, I would actually plough MORE money into the news/World Service side of the BBC - rewarding success with cash the way we give more money to successful Olympic sports
It is the domestic arena where it is a mess. But just because it is a mess is absolutely no reason to gut it, let alone demolish it. Sort it out, and fix it
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
I rarely watch TV, excepting F1. Most of what I watch now is history, fantasy, and video game stuff on YouTube, and listening is for history podcasts, not radio.
It's a few years ago now but I remember seeing Rageh Omaar[sp] and the ITV business editor, I think (Joel Hills?) discussing with seeming amazement that people were watching so much internet video content rather than TV. That baffled me, as they're not that much older than I am yet seemed perplexed at the notion of people watching content they're specifically into and that can be viewed free, at any time, rather than being chained to a TV schedule.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
If you value BBC Radio you should be able to pay for it. I don’t. I listen to Greatest Hits. So why should I ?
The BBC is not free, the radio is not free, the world service is not free. It is all funded by taxation/license fees.
Why should the poorest in society be prosecuted in ever increasing numbers and fined money they really don’t have to spare so wealthy middle class people can luxuriate in BBC broadcasts that they themselves could easily fund if they were private.
Just looking for party political broadcasts from the Party to Protect the People from NHK (Japan's BBC) because they were pretty great but I couldn't find one with subtitles. There's this one that doesn't need them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGqIIhZH3k&t=38s
I rarely watch TV, excepting F1. Most of what I watch now is history, fantasy, and video game stuff on YouTube, and listening is for history podcasts, not radio.
It's a few years ago now but I remember seeing Rageh Omaar[sp] and the ITV business editor, I think (Joel Hills?) discussing with seeming amazement that people were watching so much internet video content rather than TV. That baffled me, as they're not that much older than I am yet seemed perplexed at the notion of people watching content they're specifically into and that can be viewed free, at any time, rather than being chained to a TV schedule.
Its astonishing the TV schedule has still persisted. It says so much about our inner conservatism and the desire to cling to old modes of doing things. But, even for my generation, it is a dying thing. We watch Masterchef, the Professionals, but always on the iPlayer, never when it is supposedly "on".
See the Times has published its annual ranking of schools in its Parent Power supplement. Especially useful for parents planning their escape from the private sector and impending VAT on fees.
@HYUFD is adamant that such parents won’t touch with a barge pole a state school that is not Outstanding according to OFSTED. Looking forward to see what happens in North Yorkshire where there is a single Outstanding state secondary school which is already well over-subscribed.
Delighted to see the Times nominate a school in Hull as Comprehensive of the Year. Partly because St Mary’s College is in my home town but mainly because Peach Junior is on the SLT there.
There is also Ripon grammar school which makes the Sunday Times list if they won't be able to afford Ampleforth fees.
Room for more free schools too.
However given North Yorkshire is one of the most rural areas in the country there are no big cities there and even the towns are generally small and take in all the pupils from the neighbouring villages for secondary school
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
I absolutely haven't! I'm not really into gossip.
Says a chap with nearly 15,000 posts on PB.
All relating to critical political developments old chap.
I rarely watch TV, excepting F1. Most of what I watch now is history, fantasy, and video game stuff on YouTube, and listening is for history podcasts, not radio.
It's a few years ago now but I remember seeing Rageh Omaar[sp] and the ITV business editor, I think (Joel Hills?) discussing with seeming amazement that people were watching so much internet video content rather than TV. That baffled me, as they're not that much older than I am yet seemed perplexed at the notion of people watching content they're specifically into and that can be viewed free, at any time, rather than being chained to a TV schedule.
Its astonishing the TV schedule has still persisted. It says so much about our inner conservatism and the desire to cling to old modes of doing things. But, even for my generation, it is a dying thing. We watch Masterchef, the Professionals, but always on the iPlayer, never when it is supposedly "on".
I first read that as Masterchef and The Professionals. An eclectic mix !!
Top rated Beeb 1 shows on Saturday. Strictly, just over 7 million and Dr Who just under 5 million. Even 10 years ago those numbers would be regarded as failures. Now they’re seen as successes.
7 day and 28 day catch up numbers are ever more important.
I rarely watch TV, excepting F1. Most of what I watch now is history, fantasy, and video game stuff on YouTube, and listening is for history podcasts, not radio.
It's a few years ago now but I remember seeing Rageh Omaar[sp] and the ITV business editor, I think (Joel Hills?) discussing with seeming amazement that people were watching so much internet video content rather than TV. That baffled me, as they're not that much older than I am yet seemed perplexed at the notion of people watching content they're specifically into and that can be viewed free, at any time, rather than being chained to a TV schedule.
Its astonishing the TV schedule has still persisted. It says so much about our inner conservatism and the desire to cling to old modes of doing things. But, even for my generation, it is a dying thing. We watch Masterchef, the Professionals, but always on the iPlayer, never when it is supposedly "on".
I think it still makes sense for the news, because you can be reasonably confident that it's up to date, whereas if you go to News24 or Euronews or whatever, you don't know when it was last updated, and also you have to fiddle around with getting the start of the programme.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
If I never saw another TV programme it wouldn't bother me, but I couldn't live without the radio.
I'm going to break the habit of a lunchtime and agree with @bondegezou
Like it or not, the BBC does project an awful lot of soft power for the UK. It is respected abroad in a way most people - who don't travel much - do not realise. You can go to a war-torn or miserable part of Asia, Africa, wherever, and the BBC is viewed with great respect, more than almost any other British (or indeed European) institution, and more than any other media corporation
This is PRECISELY why so many other countries try to copy it. France, Russia, Iran, Germany, China, Al Jaz, they all try to do versions of the BBC (often in English) with various degrees of success, but rarely quite as well
If I was UK dictator, I would actually plough MORE money into the news/World Service side of the BBC - rewarding success with cash the way we give more money to successful Olympic sports
It is the domestic arena where it is a mess. But just because it is a mess is absolutely no reason to gut it, let alone demolish it. Sort it out, and fix it
Agree entirely on BBC World News and BBC World Service channels.
Prosecuting tens of thousands of disproportionally poor single mothers to pay Gary Linker’s seven figure salary, on the other hand, not so much.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
I rarely watch TV, excepting F1. Most of what I watch now is history, fantasy, and video game stuff on YouTube, and listening is for history podcasts, not radio.
It's a few years ago now but I remember seeing Rageh Omaar[sp] and the ITV business editor, I think (Joel Hills?) discussing with seeming amazement that people were watching so much internet video content rather than TV. That baffled me, as they're not that much older than I am yet seemed perplexed at the notion of people watching content they're specifically into and that can be viewed free, at any time, rather than being chained to a TV schedule.
Its astonishing the TV schedule has still persisted. It says so much about our inner conservatism and the desire to cling to old modes of doing things. But, even for my generation, it is a dying thing. We watch Masterchef, the Professionals, but always on the iPlayer, never when it is supposedly "on".
I think it still makes sense for the news, because you can be reasonably confident that it's up to date, whereas if you go to News24 or Euronews or whatever, you don't know when it was last updated, and also you have to fiddle around with getting the start of the programme.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Exactly. We agree. People need to get real. Radio essential? Excellent - let's pay for it. You pay for it, together with all those other people (me for example) who likewise think it is essential. And it will stand or fall and cut its cloth according to the revenue received.
Just don't make it compulsory to listen to. Plus bin those shockingly unfunny 6.30pm R4 "comedy" programmes and I'd pay 10% more.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
Yes. I hate the BBC’s Wokeness and I’d be quite happy if Lineker never spoke another word on social media - and yet I accept that if the BBC disappeared it would leave a huge hole in British cultural life
It’s the beeb. It’s us. Good and bad, cringe and creditworthy - many nations would love to have such a revered media institution projecting a sane, sensible respectable image around the world
It’s part of the whole package of Britishness, a crucial part of the brand. And at a wobbly moment for the country, we fuck with it at our peril
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
I absolutely haven't! I'm not really into gossip.
The Iceland rumour is particularly juicy.
A bit like the Finland rumour, but with added fire and the potential to really erupt
I'm going to break the habit of a lunchtime and agree with @bondegezou
Like it or not, the BBC does project an awful lot of soft power for the UK. It is respected abroad in a way most people - who don't travel much - do not realise. You can go to a war-torn or miserable part of Asia, Africa, wherever, and the BBC is viewed with great respect, more than almost any other British (or indeed European) institution, and more than any other media corporation
This is PRECISELY why so many other countries try to copy it. France, Russia, Iran, Germany, China, Al Jaz, they all try to do versions of the BBC (often in English) with various degrees of success, but rarely quite as well
If I was UK dictator, I would actually plough MORE money into the news/World Service side of the BBC - rewarding success with cash the way we give more money to successful Olympic sports
It is the domestic arena where it is a mess. But just because it is a mess is absolutely no reason to gut it, let alone demolish it. Sort it out, and fix it
Agree entirely on BBC World News and BBC World Service channels.
Prosecuting tens of thousands of disproportionally poor single mothers to pay Gary Linker’s seven figure salary, on the other hand, not so much.
Yes I agree. But that’s why I say “fix it” don’t “bin it”
We will be making a grave mistake if we let the BBC fall apart
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
Yes. I hate the BBC’s Wokeness and I’d be quite happy if Lineker never spoke another word on social media - and yet I accept that if the BBC disappeared it would leave a huge hole in British cultural life
It’s the beeb. It’s us. Good and bad, cringe and creditworthy - many nations would love to have such a revered media institution projecting a sane, sensible respectable image around the world
It’s part of the whole package of Britishness, a crucial part of the brand. And at a wobbly moment for the country, we fuck with it at our peril
It is the quintessence of what it means to be British that the BBC should send 500 people to Glastonbury every time it's on and report on it as though it was Nixon in China x2.
Edit: and I really couldn't give a fuck who's headlining on the Pyramid Stage.
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
I absolutely haven't! I'm not really into gossip.
The Iceland rumour is particularly juicy.
A bit like the Finland rumour, but with added fire and the potential to really erupt
On the other hand Icelandic volcanic tremblings often end anticlimactically in a big flood of cold water and sludge.
I think the prosecution of supposed TV license fraudsters is a major risk to the BBC.
Has the whiff of the Post Office scandal about it. Vulnerable people, in dire financial straits, signed off en masse by magistrates*, isolated legal representation.
* Is it happening in Scotland too?
Similar to what Cyclefree was saying re the PO the other day: the BBC and Capita don't have it theor own way in Scotland. Unlike in England, the PF does the deciding and prosecuting. So it goes for other options than prosecution, presumably cos there are more important things to use limited court time and resources on.
Edit: but see DAvidL's post which I have now seen. Confused ...
That does not accord with the experience of a good friend of mine who sits as a JP in Edinburgh. The alternative to prosecution is normally a fixed penalty. If you don't pay the fixed penalty you are prosecuted. I think these numbers are somewhat misleading.
Edit my guess is that they show the number of people offered a fixed penalty first.
Thanks. Less hassle all round, and no crim record?
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
Yes. I hate the BBC’s Wokeness and I’d be quite happy if Lineker never spoke another word on social media - and yet I accept that if the BBC disappeared it would leave a huge hole in British cultural life
It’s the beeb. It’s us. Good and bad, cringe and creditworthy - many nations would love to have such a revered media institution projecting a sane, sensible respectable image around the world
It’s part of the whole package of Britishness, a crucial part of the brand. And at a wobbly moment for the country, we fuck with it at our peril
It is the quintessence of what it means to be British that the BBC should send 500 people to Glastonbury every time it's on and report on it as though it was Nixon in China x2.
Edit: and I really couldn't give a fuck who's headlining on the Pyramid Stage.
But that’s like saying tear down the English Premier League because you hate the way Newcastle got bought
A massively successful source of soft power and a world leading brand - these are assets. Hard to quantify but very definitely assets
And this British branding is deeply important. It’s one reason so many students want to come to the UK. It’s all tied together
I'm going to break the habit of a lunchtime and agree with @bondegezou
Like it or not, the BBC does project an awful lot of soft power for the UK. It is respected abroad in a way most people - who don't travel much - do not realise. You can go to a war-torn or miserable part of Asia, Africa, wherever, and the BBC is viewed with great respect, more than almost any other British (or indeed European) institution, and more than any other media corporation
This is PRECISELY why so many other countries try to copy it. France, Russia, Iran, Germany, China, Al Jaz, they all try to do versions of the BBC (often in English) with various degrees of success, but rarely quite as well
If I was UK dictator, I would actually plough MORE money into the news/World Service side of the BBC - rewarding success with cash the way we give more money to successful Olympic sports
It is the domestic arena where it is a mess. But just because it is a mess is absolutely no reason to gut it, let alone demolish it. Sort it out, and fix it
Agree entirely on BBC World News and BBC World Service channels.
Prosecuting tens of thousands of disproportionally poor single mothers to pay Gary Linker’s seven figure salary, on the other hand, not so much.
Yes I agree. But that’s why I say “fix it” don’t “bin it”
We will be making a grave mistake if we let the BBC fall apart
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
If you value BBC Radio you should be able to pay for it. I don’t. I listen to Greatest Hits. So why should I ?
The BBC is not free, the radio is not free, the world service is not free. It is all funded by taxation/license fees.
Why should the poorest in society be prosecuted in ever increasing numbers and fined money they really don’t have to spare so wealthy middle class people can luxuriate in BBC broadcasts that they themselves could easily fund if they were private.
Almost entirely agree. My only reservation is that I think there is merit in the concept of public service broadcasting, and have zero confidence in a privately funded sector to maintain the (limited) impartiality of a BBC type outfit. I don't think a satisfactory funding model exists, only sub optimal and worse ones.
A 'valve' tax applying only to retired spinsters in Sussex who still have radios you have to wait to warm up and prefer long wave may be an option; they pay no licence fee now as they threw the old black and white out after watching Virginia Wade win Wimbledon.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
It is true that I don't think the only measure of success is "making lots of money".
(National service lasted for 17 years. The BBC is 101. They're not particularly comparable.)
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
Yes. I hate the BBC’s Wokeness and I’d be quite happy if Lineker never spoke another word on social media - and yet I accept that if the BBC disappeared it would leave a huge hole in British cultural life
It’s the beeb. It’s us. Good and bad, cringe and creditworthy - many nations would love to have such a revered media institution projecting a sane, sensible respectable image around the world
It’s part of the whole package of Britishness, a crucial part of the brand. And at a wobbly moment for the country, we fuck with it at our peril
It is the quintessence of what it means to be British that the BBC should send 500 people to Glastonbury every time it's on and report on it as though it was Nixon in China x2.
Edit: and I really couldn't give a fuck who's headlining on the Pyramid Stage.
Glastonbury is a major cultural event that not everyone can attend. It's probably about as important as the FA cup final?
The ideal BBC programme would actually be Clarkson's farm: explores a niche industry, entertaining, touches on some policy issues without being political, nods to other interests like conservation, introduces some normal British people as stars.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
Yes. I hate the BBC’s Wokeness and I’d be quite happy if Lineker never spoke another word on social media - and yet I accept that if the BBC disappeared it would leave a huge hole in British cultural life
It’s the beeb. It’s us. Good and bad, cringe and creditworthy - many nations would love to have such a revered media institution projecting a sane, sensible respectable image around the world
It’s part of the whole package of Britishness, a crucial part of the brand. And at a wobbly moment for the country, we fuck with it at our peril
It's already fucked with. There's practically nothing left worth saving. It's a shadow of what it was even five years ago.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
It is true that I don't think the only measure of success is "making lots of money".
(National service lasted for 17 years. The BBC is 101. They're not particularly comparable.)
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with you. But I am
Netflix could disappear tomorrow. The brand is already diminishing as other streamers compete. It would not be missed
“The BBC” is a different beast altogether. It’s like “Wimbledon” in tennis
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
I absolutely haven't! I'm not really into gossip.
The Iceland rumour is particularly juicy.
A bit like the Finland rumour, but with added fire and the potential to really erupt
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
If you value BBC Radio you should be able to pay for it. I don’t. I listen to Greatest Hits. So why should I ?
The BBC is not free, the radio is not free, the world service is not free. It is all funded by taxation/license fees.
Why should the poorest in society be prosecuted in ever increasing numbers and fined money they really don’t have to spare so wealthy middle class people can luxuriate in BBC broadcasts that they themselves could easily fund if they were private.
Almost entirely agree. My only reservation is that I think there is merit in the concept of public service broadcasting, and have zero confidence in a privately funded sector to maintain the (limited) impartiality of a BBC type outfit. I don't think a satisfactory funding model exists, only sub optimal and worse ones.
A 'valve' tax applying only to retired spinsters in Sussex who still have radios you have to wait to warm up and prefer long wave may be an option; they pay no licence fee now as they threw the old black and white out after watching Virginia Wade win Wimbledon.
Common topics on PB include what went wrong with privatising the railways and what went wrong with privatising water services. The calls for some here to effectively privatise the BBC are, I presume, just because they want to drive more traffic on PB in the future.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
Yes. I hate the BBC’s Wokeness and I’d be quite happy if Lineker never spoke another word on social media - and yet I accept that if the BBC disappeared it would leave a huge hole in British cultural life
It’s the beeb. It’s us. Good and bad, cringe and creditworthy - many nations would love to have such a revered media institution projecting a sane, sensible respectable image around the world
It’s part of the whole package of Britishness, a crucial part of the brand. And at a wobbly moment for the country, we fuck with it at our peril
It is the quintessence of what it means to be British that the BBC should send 500 people to Glastonbury every time it's on and report on it as though it was Nixon in China x2.
Edit: and I really couldn't give a fuck who's headlining on the Pyramid Stage.
But that’s like saying tear down the English Premier League because you hate the way Newcastle got bought
A massively successful source of soft power and a world leading brand - these are assets. Hard to quantify but very definitely assets
And this British branding is deeply important. It’s one reason so many students want to come to the UK. It’s all tied together
I watched MOTD for the first time in a couple of months yesterday (dreadful weather outside) to see an Arsenal team, none of whom I recognise anymore apart from Odegaard and Saka eek out a 2-0 win vs Wolves. Other than that I don't watch PL football. And guess what? I don't have to pay for it, apart from the few pence that MOTD must cost out of my licence fee. I certainly don't want or legally need to subscribe to Sky.
See the Times has published its annual ranking of schools in its Parent Power supplement. Especially useful for parents planning their escape from the private sector and impending VAT on fees.
@HYUFD is adamant that such parents won’t touch with a barge pole a state school that is not Outstanding according to OFSTED. Looking forward to see what happens in North Yorkshire where there is a single Outstanding state secondary school which is already well over-subscribed.
Delighted to see the Times nominate a school in Hull as Comprehensive of the Year. Partly because St Mary’s College is in my home town but mainly because Peach Junior is on the SLT there.
There is also Ripon grammar school which makes the Sunday Times list if they won't be able to afford Ampleforth fees.
Room for more free schools too.
However given North Yorkshire is one of the most rural areas in the country there are no big cities there and even the towns are generally small and take in all the pupils from the neighbouring villages for secondary school
But Ripon Grammar isn’t Outstanding so according to you they won’t touch it with a barge pole.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
BBC. Telly generally awful; website very patchy. But, and it is a big matter, it is not easy to locate a media organisation better at ensuring a reasonable degree of accuracy and verification, which tries, not always successfully, to be balanced ('no bias' is way beyond the BBC, but probably that's just the way reality is) and has the capacity for reasonably comprehensive coverage.
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of
course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
Whether you love it or hate it, without the BBC, Britain wouldn’t feel like Britain anymore. I’ve listened to Radio 5 football this season and having a show simply called ‘Sports Report’ with the old fashioned tune is lovely. Maybe kids won’t feel the same but I think there is something ineffable about the beeb that is worth keeping
Yes. I hate the BBC’s Wokeness and I’d be quite happy if Lineker never spoke another word on social media - and yet I accept that if the BBC disappeared it would leave a huge hole in British cultural life
It’s the beeb. It’s us. Good and bad, cringe and creditworthy - many nations would love to have such a revered media institution projecting a sane, sensible respectable image around the world
It’s part of the whole package of Britishness, a crucial part of the brand. And at a wobbly moment for the country, we fuck with it at our peril
It is the quintessence of what it means to be British that the BBC should send 500 people to Glastonbury every time it's on and report on it as though it was Nixon in China x2.
Edit: and I really couldn't give a fuck who's headlining on the Pyramid Stage.
Glastonbury is a major cultural event that not everyone can attend. It's probably about as important as the FA cup final?
The ideal BBC programme would actually be Clarkson's farm: explores a niche industry, entertaining, touches on some policy issues without being political, nods to other interests like conservation, introduces some normal British people as stars.
Glastonbury absolutely is not a major cultural event. It is a pop concert. Festival. With excellent PR and, in the day, Kate Moss and Pete Docherty hanging out in short denim shorts and a trilby respectively.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Another common PB complaint is the British disease of doing everything on the cheap. So, yes, public institutions should set an example where possible, and communal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, but we should also stop trying to do the same on less money, and instead be investing. However the BBC is funded, and I agree with the concerns around license fee non-payment prosecutions, let's put more £ in.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
It is true that I don't think the only measure of success is "making lots of money".
(National service lasted for 17 years. The BBC is 101. They're not particularly comparable.)
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with you. But I am
Netflix could disappear tomorrow. The brand is already diminishing as other streamers compete. It would not be missed
“The BBC” is a different beast altogether. It’s like “Wimbledon” in tennis
The brand is near priceless
Then it should have no problem paying for itself with a few quid over to send yet another camera crew to Glasto. Latitude, perhaps, also.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
It is true that I don't think the only measure of success is "making lots of money".
(National service lasted for 17 years. The BBC is 101. They're not particularly comparable.)
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with you. But I am
Netflix could disappear tomorrow. The brand is already diminishing as other streamers compete. It would not be missed
“The BBC” is a different beast altogether. It’s like “Wimbledon” in tennis
The brand is near priceless
Then it should have no problem paying for itself with a few quid over to send yet another camera crew to Glasto. Latitude, perhaps, also.
You are in quite a vituperative mood. I take it that the British winter is still miserable
The latest Hail Mary Pass to appeal to Captain Mainwaring.
The Government having reached an agreement for the BBC to increase its licence fee by the rate of inflation for several years in return for savings delivered previously, Short-Term-Rishi is going back on the promise for pure attempted politics - which are likely to fail.
The BBC fulfilled it's side of the bargain - a 2 year freeze, and Rishi is welching on the deal. What a miserable, untrustworthy, Scrooge-like Government we have.
At least their reputation is consistent, if that's what they want to reinforce.
Is anyone surprised?
I wonder, is this potentially subject to legal action?
It’s our money not the governments. Sunak is hardly being Scrooge, which is a tired Xmas cliche.
Whether the politics will fail or not is irrelevant. It is the right thing to do in a cost of living crisis.
I doubt it would appeal,to Cpt Mainwaring either. He’d be proud of the institution.
And it's for us as a country to decide what we wish to tax, and invest in our public realm and our future.
Rishi attacking the BBC has nothing to do with a cost of living crisis; when a few billion is needed to lubricate the base, it appears instantly. The BBC move is political, for appearance.
Personally I think a Prime Minister unable to be trusted is more concerning.
Scrooge is precisely the right comparison - a short-termist Government salami-slicing everything including basic services, and wasting untold amounts of resource along the way by failure to think beyond the end of their noses.
What happened to fixing social care, for example? Or transport expenditure?
FFS in the midst of the greatest security crisis for a generation, this lot have *cut* defence expenditure.
It's all about salting the Earth for the incoming government now.
Hence my suggestion Starmer abolishes the license fee. Defuses the issue.
Replaces it with what though ?
A subscription. Initially, simply roll over the licence fee into a subscription, and provide free decoding boxes / software.
End the public ownership model and set it up as a mutual, owned by the subscribers, with protection in law from demutualisation and/or takeover. Then set it free to produce, commission and charge what it wants.
He needs to lean back, manspread and dominate the space with his genitals. Like when Carra is on Sky Sports.
I have to admit I thought that photo was some kind of cruel photo montage when I first saw it. Politics is a cruel and brutal business but on some primitive basis it is essentially a tribe of chimp-like hominems choosing an alpha male to lead us into combat against the neighbouring tribe. Someone who sits like that is not going to be chosen.
Quite a dash of homophobia in there
Er, I wasn't aware Rishi is gay. If you think a gay man can't be an alpha male maybe you are the homophobe here! I'm not saying it should be like this, in many ways this method of choosing leaders is quite backwards and stupid, it leads to people choosing leaders like Trump, but the reality is that politicians who can't assert strength struggle to impress the public. Pictures like this are quite harmful to the Tories' chances IMHO.
Hmm
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
I absolutely haven't! I'm not really into gossip.
I doubt hardly any of us has unless you scroll through the dross on twitter and follow conspiracy stuff.
Fundamentally it's not the BBC, it's the manner of its delivery that is at issue. If it uses the broadcast spectrum, which is a pure public good, then it cannot select who watches it. Thus the need for a licence fee, or else finance from tax revenue, which amounts to the same thing. Except that being dependent on tax-based revenue leaves it prone to political interference. Nevertheless the disgreeable aspects of enforcing the licence fee incline me to support taxation. What else can the broadcast spectrum be used for?
Mr. L, what also surprises me is that episodes of streamed content all follow a similar size. As if they have a fictional 1 hour television slot.
Netflix have played around a little with the length of episodes to match the particular story. It is another example of conservatism though.
There was a discussion about this on one of the comedy podcasts the other day, where it was mentioned that a “1 hour” comedy special for TV used to be about 42’ long because of all the adverts on American TV - but they’re now almost always 60’ long, because that’s the minimum programme length for Emmy award nomination. That means the comic needs to have 50% more material than used to be the case!
The Chairman of the Republicans in Florida and his wife, who campaigns for any reference to anything other than heterosexual models to be banned from schools were having threesomes. When the wife was not available the third wheel called off saying she was really into the wife, not him. So, allegedly, he went and raped her.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Another common PB complaint is the British disease of doing everything on the cheap. So, yes, public institutions should set an example where possible, and communal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, but we should also stop trying to do the same on less money, and instead be investing. However the BBC is funded, and I agree with the concerns around license fee non-payment prosecutions, let's put more £ in.
The problem I have with that is the BBCs mission to inform, educate and entertain can be done relatively on the cheap. There are loads of wannabee presenters who would be delighted to work for £50k to replace an outgoing presenter on £250k moving to Sky or ITV, and may be just as good. Indeed freshness of talent is just as important as familiarity of talent.
It is not at all comparable with hospitals being run on the cheap where we cant get the staff on current salaries and then decide we won't even keep those up with inflation resulting in more staff leaving, long queues and a load of people off work sick.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
On topic, I agree with Truss (and rather more importantly, Hunt). We need to tax all income the same whether it is earned or not. A brave Labour government might go further and decide income from capital assets or pensions should perhaps bear more tax than earned income but I don't see that happening any time soon.
The better course would be to adopt a Lawsonian approach to tax reform and simply incorporate NI into IT but, since that has proved too difficult, a series of steps like the Autumn statement should eventually get us there.
It hasn't proved too difficult; government have been too jumpy at shadows in their minds. It would be simple enough to do if they wanted to; they're just worried about who the losers would be and how newspapers would react. However, I think those thoughts give too much weight to either factor in how people would vote (never mind what's right to do).
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
The BBC’s income would collapse under this model. It wouldn’t be able to make what it currently makes.
Fine. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use. I mean yes hospitals if they are well or roads if they don't drive. But a broadcast media company? Nope. That is crazy to force people on pain of prosecution to consume it.
Fair enough, if you take that view. But be very clear that your plan would mean the end of the BBC as we know it.
I think the BBC is a hugely successful UK export. I agree with other people there. I think when you have something that’s very successful, it’s a bad idea to destroy it.
It is OK. It projects "our values" abroad (how colonially quaint, as though people in sub-Saharan Africa need "our values"). But it can't be hugely successful otherwise or we wouldn't be having this discussion wrt funding models.
The fact that we’re discussing it, as piece of significant political news, shows that the BBC is not just any old company. It is an important part of the country. That is an example of how successful it has been.
It absolutely is a piece of significant news and is part of the fabric of the nation. As was national service, coal-mining and cock fighting. All now things of the past. Being part of the fabric of the nation doesn't mean it is a good or relevant thing today.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
It is true that I don't think the only measure of success is "making lots of money".
(National service lasted for 17 years. The BBC is 101. They're not particularly comparable.)
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with you. But I am
Netflix could disappear tomorrow. The brand is already diminishing as other streamers compete. It would not be missed
“The BBC” is a different beast altogether. It’s like “Wimbledon” in tennis
The brand is near priceless
Then it should have no problem paying for itself with a few quid over to send yet another camera crew to Glasto. Latitude, perhaps, also.
You are in quite a vituperative mood. I take it that the British winter is still miserable
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Another common PB complaint is the British disease of doing everything on the cheap. So, yes, public institutions should set an example where possible, and communal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, but we should also stop trying to do the same on less money, and instead be investing. However the BBC is funded, and I agree with the concerns around license fee non-payment prosecutions, let's put more £ in.
No. This is the publics money. We are taxed enough as it is and if we are going to have tot pay more of our hard earned there are far more deserving causes than daytime TV and Radio 6. Local govt and care funding are crying out for more money and are far more important than funding repeats of Father Brown, bargain hunt and cash in the attic and channels no one has any interest in like BBC 3, for da yoof.
I think the prosecution of supposed TV license fraudsters is a major risk to the BBC.
Has the whiff of the Post Office scandal about it. Vulnerable people, in dire financial straits, signed off en masse by magistrates*, isolated legal representation.
* Is it happening in Scotland too?
Similar to what Cyclefree was saying re the PO the other day: the BBC and Capita don't have it theor own way in Scotland. Unlike in England, the PF does the deciding and prosecuting. So it goes for other options than prosecution, presumably cos there are more important things to use limited court time and resources on.
Edit: but see DAvidL's post which I have now seen. Confused ...
That does not accord with the experience of a good friend of mine who sits as a JP in Edinburgh. The alternative to prosecution is normally a fixed penalty. If you don't pay the fixed penalty you are prosecuted. I think these numbers are somewhat misleading.
Edit my guess is that they show the number of people offered a fixed penalty first.
Thanks. Less hassle all round, and no crim record?
The really cunning trick is to get to pay it by instalments and then just pay the first one. There is a lacuna in the legislation that states you cannot be prosecuted in the event that a payment is made. (For the avoidance of doubt I have no idea if the same lacuna exists in England so do not try this at home).
Fundamentally it's not the BBC, it's the manner of its delivery that is at issue. If it uses the broadcast spectrum, which is a pure public good, then it cannot select who watches it. Thus the need for a licence fee, or else finance from tax revenue, which amounts to the same thing. Except that being dependent on tax-based revenue leaves it prone to political interference. Nevertheless the disgreeable aspects of enforcing the licence fee incline me to support taxation. What else can the broadcast spectrum be used for?
Mr. L, what also surprises me is that episodes of streamed content all follow a similar size. As if they have a fictional 1 hour television slot.
Netflix have played around a little with the length of episodes to match the particular story. It is another example of conservatism though.
There was a discussion about this on one of the comedy podcasts the other day, where it was mentioned that a “1 hour” comedy special for TV used to be about 42’ long because of all the adverts on American TV - but they’re now almost always 60’ long, because that’s the minimum programme length for Emmy award nomination. That means the comic needs to have 50% more material than used to be the case!
Or they can just swear a few more times. That always seems to get a laugh.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Another common PB complaint is the British disease of doing everything on the cheap. So, yes, public institutions should set an example where possible, and communal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, but we should also stop trying to do the same on less money, and instead be investing. However the BBC is funded, and I agree with the concerns around license fee non-payment prosecutions, let's put more £ in.
The problem I have with that is the BBCs mission to inform, educate and entertain can be done relatively on the cheap. There are loads of wannabee presenters who would be delighted to work for £50k to replace an outgoing presenter on £250k moving to Sky or ITV, and may be just as good. Indeed freshness of talent is just as important as familiarity of talent.
It is not at all comparable with hospitals being run on the cheap where we cant get the staff on current salaries and then decide we won't even keep those up with inflation resulting in more staff leaving, long queues and a load of people off work sick.
To take it a step further this is where I struggle to understand most political thought and the over reliance on ideology. Far too many clever and informed people will give the same answer to funding for hospitals and the BBC, either led by its publicly funded so we must strictly control costs in both, or it generates public good so we must increase public funding. They kind of have a stock answer to everything based on ideology rather than substance.
Yet the reality seems clear to me that (currently at least), they need opposite answers, hospitals need extra funding now, whereas the BBC really doesn't as much as I'm sure it would like some.
The latest Hail Mary Pass to appeal to Captain Mainwaring.
The Government having reached an agreement for the BBC to increase its licence fee by the rate of inflation for several years in return for savings delivered previously, Short-Term-Rishi is going back on the promise for pure attempted politics - which are likely to fail.
The BBC fulfilled it's side of the bargain - a 2 year freeze, and Rishi is welching on the deal. What a miserable, untrustworthy, Scrooge-like Government we have.
At least their reputation is consistent, if that's what they want to reinforce.
Is anyone surprised?
I wonder, is this potentially subject to legal action?
It’s our money not the governments. Sunak is hardly being Scrooge, which is a tired Xmas cliche.
Whether the politics will fail or not is irrelevant. It is the right thing to do in a cost of living crisis.
I doubt it would appeal,to Cpt Mainwaring either. He’d be proud of the institution.
And it's for us as a country to decide what we wish to tax, and invest in our public realm and our future.
Rishi attacking the BBC has nothing to do with a cost of living crisis; when a few billion is needed to lubricate the base, it appears instantly. The BBC move is political, for appearance.
Personally I think a Prime Minister unable to be trusted is more concerning.
Scrooge is precisely the right comparison - a short-termist Government salami-slicing everything including basic services, and wasting untold amounts of resource along the way by failure to think beyond the end of their noses.
What happened to fixing social care, for example? Or transport expenditure?
FFS in the midst of the greatest security crisis for a generation, this lot have *cut* defence expenditure.
Indeed, what happened to those issues. They need resolving too. Doesn’t make this move on the license fee wrong.
The funding of the BBC is anachronistic in the modern era. It is time they looked at how the BBC will be funded in future.
Fund true public service Tv and the distribution network from General taxation and let the BBC raise funds how it chooses in a commercial model outside of a license fee.
Rolling out (yet again) the TOPPING BBC FUNDING MODEL (all rights reserved).
Compartmentalise the BBC into different divisions:
News & current affairs Documentary Radio Drama "Light Entertainment" Children's Sport Etc
Charge a monthly subscription for each of them. Say £2-6/month. And of course have an "AYCE" subscription which would be in price not unadjacent to the value of the current license fee. Then people could choose what they wanted and if they wanted to pay for it. Job done.
If it's broadcast how do you restrict viewing to fee-payers?
Not sure. Login? There are plenty of subscription services around I'm sure it's doable.
This was the manifesto of the Party to Protect the People from NHK that won a seat in the Japanese Senate in 2019. They said you could scramble the signal unless you bought a subscription, presumably it would have required a decoder box.
When digital TV (Freeview etc) came in, the BBC proudly got the specification changed, so that supporting encryption in every TV and box *wasn’t* part of the spec.
They were quite proud of this, because it meant that at least *some* Freeview systems wouldn’t support encryption. So encrypting the BBC channels became impossible.
Most setups support encrypted channels, in the end. All in software.
On topic, I agree with Truss (and rather more importantly, Hunt). We need to tax all income the same whether it is earned or not. A brave Labour government might go further and decide income from capital assets or pensions should perhaps bear more tax than earned income but I don't see that happening any time soon.
The better course would be to adopt a Lawsonian approach to tax reform and simply incorporate NI into IT but, since that has proved too difficult, a series of steps like the Autumn statement should eventually get us there.
It hasn't proved too difficult; government have been too jumpy at shadows in their minds. It would be simple enough to do if they wanted to; they're just worried about who the losers would be and how newspapers would react. However, I think those thoughts give too much weight to either factor in how people would vote (never mind what's right to do).
Well a party that is so dependent on the pensioners' vote is not likely to do it. Maybe Labour will.
The latest Hail Mary Pass to appeal to Captain Mainwaring.
The Government having reached an agreement for the BBC to increase its licence fee by the rate of inflation for several years in return for savings delivered previously, Short-Term-Rishi is going back on the promise for pure attempted politics - which are likely to fail.
The BBC fulfilled it's side of the bargain - a 2 year freeze, and Rishi is welching on the deal. What a miserable, untrustworthy, Scrooge-like Government we have.
At least their reputation is consistent, if that's what they want to reinforce.
Is anyone surprised?
I wonder, is this potentially subject to legal action?
It’s our money not the governments. Sunak is hardly being Scrooge, which is a tired Xmas cliche.
Whether the politics will fail or not is irrelevant. It is the right thing to do in a cost of living crisis.
I doubt it would appeal,to Cpt Mainwaring either. He’d be proud of the institution.
And it's for us as a country to decide what we wish to tax, and invest in our public realm and our future.
Rishi attacking the BBC has nothing to do with a cost of living crisis; when a few billion is needed to lubricate the base, it appears instantly. The BBC move is political, for appearance.
Personally I think a Prime Minister unable to be trusted is more concerning.
Scrooge is precisely the right comparison - a short-termist Government salami-slicing everything including basic services, and wasting untold amounts of resource along the way by failure to think beyond the end of their noses.
What happened to fixing social care, for example? Or transport expenditure?
FFS in the midst of the greatest security crisis for a generation, this lot have *cut* defence expenditure.
It's all about salting the Earth for the incoming government now.
Hence my suggestion Starmer abolishes the license fee. Defuses the issue.
Replaces it with what though ?
A subscription. Initially, simply roll over the licence fee into a subscription, and provide free decoding boxes / software.
End the public ownership model and set it up as a mutual, owned by the subscribers, with protection in law from demutualisation and/or takeover. Then set it free to produce, commission and charge what it wants.
This might work. Though there would have to be enforceable restrictions on the supply of decoding boxes/software else competition from alternative suppliers would undermine the model.
Mr. L, what also surprises me is that episodes of streamed content all follow a similar size. As if they have a fictional 1 hour television slot.
Netflix have played around a little with the length of episodes to match the particular story. It is another example of conservatism though.
There was a discussion about this on one of the comedy podcasts the other day, where it was mentioned that a “1 hour” comedy special for TV used to be about 42’ long because of all the adverts on American TV - but they’re now almost always 60’ long, because that’s the minimum programme length for Emmy award nomination. That means the comic needs to have 50% more material than used to be the case!
Or they can just swear a few more times. That always seems to get a laugh.
They’re not all terribly sweary. For every Jimmy Carr there’s a Michael McIntyre - same result of an audience laughing, but different ways of going about it!
I think the prosecution of supposed TV license fraudsters is a major risk to the BBC.
Has the whiff of the Post Office scandal about it. Vulnerable people, in dire financial straits, signed off en masse by magistrates*, isolated legal representation.
* Is it happening in Scotland too?
Similar to what Cyclefree was saying re the PO the other day: the BBC and Capita don't have it theor own way in Scotland. Unlike in England, the PF does the deciding and prosecuting. So it goes for other options than prosecution, presumably cos there are more important things to use limited court time and resources on.
Edit: but see DAvidL's post which I have now seen. Confused ...
That does not accord with the experience of a good friend of mine who sits as a JP in Edinburgh. The alternative to prosecution is normally a fixed penalty. If you don't pay the fixed penalty you are prosecuted. I think these numbers are somewhat misleading.
Edit my guess is that they show the number of people offered a fixed penalty first.
Thanks. Less hassle all round, and no crim record?
The really cunning trick is to get to pay it by instalments and then just pay the first one. There is a lacuna in the legislation that states you cannot be prosecuted in the event that a payment is made. (For the avoidance of doubt I have no idea if the same lacuna exists in England so do not try this at home).
Sure, but that’s for the savvy ‘don’t want to pay’ brigade. Most of the people who can’t afford to pay the licence fee wouldn’t know a lacuna from a lagonda.
This is yet another issue the next Labour government is going to have to sort out.
The unspoken glaringly evident elephant in the lead being that the Tories' client base, elderly (and especially asset-rich) pensioners, don't pay NI but do pay IT. During the period set out by the lead, the Tories proportion of the elderly vote has increased whilst among working age people it has continued to dwindle away.
If there is an awareness to rebalance towards a more equitable, and wealth-generation friendly, balance of taxation, then this is a good thing.
Indeed, it would make a lot of sense to significantly simplify our tax code by rolling Income Tax, National Insurance, Capital Gains Tax, and even Inheritance Tax, into one type of tax all levied on the same incomes at the same rate (with a single tax free allowance and higher rate bands as appropriate).
It’s pensioners too, who pay the BBC license fee. It’s been made clear here on several occasions that there are people who never watch the BBC and consequently don’t pay a license fee. For as long as I can get away with it anyway!
And good morning one, and all; I hope those affected by the snows of of the north Are able to get about now
You don't get away with anything. Just disconnect any live broadcast receiving equipment, don't watch anything live broadcast by a "recognised TV company" or BBC iplayer, cancel your direct debit then enjoy watching whatever catchup or streaming service you want. I genuinely don't watch anything that requires a TV licence. No laws are broken, I don't have to respond to the increasingly threatening letters that Capita send out. Detector vans don't exist. I honestly don't hate the BBC and enjoy their output on other streaming services, I just don't love them enough to pay a licence fee I don't require.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Another common PB complaint is the British disease of doing everything on the cheap. So, yes, public institutions should set an example where possible, and communal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, but we should also stop trying to do the same on less money, and instead be investing. However the BBC is funded, and I agree with the concerns around license fee non-payment prosecutions, let's put more £ in.
The problem I have with that is the BBCs mission to inform, educate and entertain can be done relatively on the cheap. There are loads of wannabee presenters who would be delighted to work for £50k to replace an outgoing presenter on £250k moving to Sky or ITV, and may be just as good. Indeed freshness of talent is just as important as familiarity of talent.
It is not at all comparable with hospitals being run on the cheap where we cant get the staff on current salaries and then decide we won't even keep those up with inflation resulting in more staff leaving, long queues and a load of people off work sick.
I think a lack of investment is a broader issue than that. For example, people on this thread have been talking about the solution for the BBC to become an international streaming platform. OK, it's an idea, but you need substantial investment to get there.
But, sure, I agree there are some overpaid presenters that the BBC should not worry about losing.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Another common PB complaint is the British disease of doing everything on the cheap. So, yes, public institutions should set an example where possible, and communal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, but we should also stop trying to do the same on less money, and instead be investing. However the BBC is funded, and I agree with the concerns around license fee non-payment prosecutions, let's put more £ in.
No. This is the publics money. We are taxed enough as it is and if we are going to have tot pay more of our hard earned there are far more deserving causes than daytime TV and Radio 6. Local govt and care funding are crying out for more money and are far more important than funding repeats of Father Brown, bargain hunt and cash in the attic and channels no one has any interest in like BBC 3, for da yoof.
Yes, local government and care funding need more money, but that doesn't mean everything else is unimportant. We are taxed less than many other countries, like our European neighbours. We've had over a decade of cutting corners and it hasn't made us better off.
Sunak correct on bbc, £15 increase is too much, £5 is about right imo. Medium term, it should be switched to general taxation, absolutely ridiculous to have tens of thousand of people a year prosecuted for non payment when our courts can't cope with non BBC workloads. In favour of a publicly funded BBC but lets simplify and detoxify the process.
£15 is an extra 29p a week, £1.20 a month. Regardless of the arguments about the licence fee, I'm not sure that hitting people for an extra 29p a week would constitute a significant contribution to cost of living pressures, as the government is claiming.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
Sometimes it is not just can people afford it, but also should we do it? The answer to £15 a week is clearly no because:
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Another common PB complaint is the British disease of doing everything on the cheap. So, yes, public institutions should set an example where possible, and communal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, but we should also stop trying to do the same on less money, and instead be investing. However the BBC is funded, and I agree with the concerns around license fee non-payment prosecutions, let's put more £ in.
The problem I have with that is the BBCs mission to inform, educate and entertain can be done relatively on the cheap. There are loads of wannabee presenters who would be delighted to work for £50k to replace an outgoing presenter on £250k moving to Sky or ITV, and may be just as good. Indeed freshness of talent is just as important as familiarity of talent.
It is not at all comparable with hospitals being run on the cheap where we cant get the staff on current salaries and then decide we won't even keep those up with inflation resulting in more staff leaving, long queues and a load of people off work sick.
I think a lack of investment is a broader issue than that. For example, people on this thread have been talking about the solution for the BBC to become an international streaming platform. OK, it's an idea, but you need substantial investment to get there.
But, sure, I agree there are some overpaid presenters that the BBC should not worry about losing.
I strongy suspect the BBC is better placed operating at a level below the likes of Amazon/Netlix/Disney rather than taking them on whether publicly funded or not.
Fundamentally it's not the BBC, it's the manner of its delivery that is at issue. If it uses the broadcast spectrum, which is a pure public good, then it cannot select who watches it. Thus the need for a licence fee, or else finance from tax revenue, which amounts to the same thing. Except that being dependent on tax-based revenue leaves it prone to political interference. Nevertheless the disgreeable aspects of enforcing the licence fee incline me to support taxation. What else can the broadcast spectrum be used for?
er, ITV? Channel 5?
Yes, indeed. With adverts the financing becomes feasible. But it's then a race to the lowest common denominator. But maybe that's it - just accept it
Mr. L, what also surprises me is that episodes of streamed content all follow a similar size. As if they have a fictional 1 hour television slot.
Netflix have played around a little with the length of episodes to match the particular story. It is another example of conservatism though.
There was a discussion about this on one of the comedy podcasts the other day, where it was mentioned that a “1 hour” comedy special for TV used to be about 42’ long because of all the adverts on American TV - but they’re now almost always 60’ long, because that’s the minimum programme length for Emmy award nomination. That means the comic needs to have 50% more material than used to be the case!
Or they can just swear a few more times. That always seems to get a laugh.
They’re not all terribly sweary. For every Jimmy Carr there’s a Michael McIntyre - same result of an audience laughing, but different ways of going about it!
The unspoken glaringly evident elephant in the lead being that the Tories' client base, elderly (and especially asset-rich) pensioners, don't pay NI but do pay IT. During the period set out by the lead, the Tories proportion of the elderly vote has increased whilst among working age people it has continued to dwindle away.
If there is an awareness to rebalance towards a more equitable, and wealth-generation friendly, balance of taxation, then this is a good thing.
Indeed, it would make a lot of sense to significantly simplify our tax code by rolling Income Tax, National Insurance, Capital Gains Tax, and even Inheritance Tax, into one type of tax all levied on the same incomes at the same rate (with a single tax free allowance and higher rate bands as appropriate).
It’s pensioners too, who pay the BBC license fee. It’s been made clear here on several occasions that there are people who never watch the BBC and consequently don’t pay a license fee. For as long as I can get away with it anyway!
And good morning one, and all; I hope those affected by the snows of of the north Are able to get about now
You don't get away with anything. Just disconnect any live broadcast receiving equipment, don't watch anything live broadcast by a "recognised TV company" or BBC iplayer, cancel your direct debit then enjoy watching whatever catchup or streaming service you want. I genuinely don't watch anything that requires a TV licence. No laws are broken, I don't have to respond to the increasingly threatening letters that Capita send out. Detector vans don't exist. I honestly don't hate the BBC and enjoy their output on other streaming services, I just don't love them enough to pay a licence fee I don't require.
My problem is that I genuinely watch almost nothing on the BBC. But the two programmes I do watch - Only Connect and University Challenge - are absolute musts for me. So I pay £3 a week for 1 hours compulsive viewing*. As long as I am still watching those programmes I will still pay the licence fee as I don't believe in tax evasion.
But compared to my other subscriptions with Netflix, Disney and Amazon Prime, the BBC is very, very expensive for what I get.
*Okay that calculation is wrong because neither programme are on every week of the year but for the sake of this discussion I can't be arsed to go and find out exactly how many weeks a year they are showing.
Comments
‘From general taxation’ works as a stopgap. A longer term solution requires a lot of thought, rather than being cobbled together.
There are multiple rumours about Sunak (tho of course they are just that: rumours). As a PB-er, and thus vastly better informed than most on political goss, I'm frankly surprised if you haven't encountered ANY of them?
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2023/12/419_364396.html
Maybe you touched a nerve.
Like I said, I’m getting old….
Also ‘rizzer’, as in ‘you utter rizzer’ - one who is risible.
Your "hugely successful" means, presumably, not financially hugely successful but fabric of the nation, projecting our values, dammit all we're British hugely successful. And I think this is open to debate.
https://x.com/kirkkorner/status/1616564701478920198?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
@HYUFD is adamant that such parents won’t touch with a barge pole a state school that is not Outstanding according to OFSTED. Looking forward to see what happens in North Yorkshire where there is a single Outstanding state secondary school which is already well over-subscribed.
Delighted to see the Times nominate a school in Hull as Comprehensive of the Year. Partly because St Mary’s College is in my home town but mainly because Peach Junior is on the SLT there.
We should be proud.
Like it or not, the BBC does project an awful lot of soft power for the UK. It is respected abroad in a way most people - who don't travel much - do not realise. You can go to a war-torn or miserable part of Asia, Africa, wherever, and the BBC is viewed with great respect, more than almost any other British (or indeed European) institution, and more than any other media corporation
This is PRECISELY why so many other countries try to copy it. France, Russia, Iran, Germany, China, Al Jaz, they all try to do versions of the BBC (often in English) with various degrees of success, but rarely quite as well
If I was UK dictator, I would actually plough MORE money into the news/World Service side of the BBC - rewarding success with cash the way we give more money to successful Olympic sports
It is the domestic arena where it is a mess. But just because it is a mess is absolutely no reason to gut it, let alone demolish it. Sort it out, and fix it
Here’s the town of Mechelen’s tribute to the Two Ronnies
https://x.com/mrjonnieb/status/1731351481180102848?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Secondly, the bit that is essential - really essential - is ironically the free bit - radio, including of course the World Service. I would pay way more than the licence fee for radio alone.
(For comparison, the Economist cover price is £400 per year. People need to get real).
I rarely watch TV, excepting F1. Most of what I watch now is history, fantasy, and video game stuff on YouTube, and listening is for history podcasts, not radio.
It's a few years ago now but I remember seeing Rageh Omaar[sp] and the ITV business editor, I think (Joel Hills?) discussing with seeming amazement that people were watching so much internet video content rather than TV. That baffled me, as they're not that much older than I am yet seemed perplexed at the notion of people watching content they're specifically into and that can be viewed free, at any time, rather than being chained to a TV schedule.
The BBC is not free, the radio is not free, the world service is not free. It is all funded by taxation/license fees.
Why should the poorest in society be prosecuted in ever increasing numbers and fined money they really don’t have to spare so wealthy middle class people can luxuriate in BBC broadcasts that they themselves could easily fund if they were private.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGqIIhZH3k&t=38s
Mr Johnson asked for an investigation of 'military options' to retrieve the doses
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12820877/Boris-Johnson-spies-raid-Dutch-Covid-vaccine-factory-EU-stole-doses.html
Room for more free schools too.
However given North Yorkshire is one of the most rural areas in the country there are no big cities there and even the towns are generally small and take in all the pupils from the neighbouring villages for secondary school
Top rated Beeb 1 shows on Saturday. Strictly, just over 7 million and Dr Who just under 5 million. Even 10 years ago those numbers would be regarded as failures. Now they’re seen as successes.
7 day and 28 day catch up numbers are ever more important.
Prosecuting tens of thousands of disproportionally poor single mothers to pay Gary Linker’s seven figure salary, on the other hand, not so much.
Though I recognise, of course, that many PBers may struggle to find an extra 29p per week.
The idea was only abandoned after diplomats warned it would scupper relations – and jeopardise the supply of vaccines from plants elsewhere in the EU.
Yes, I imagine it would.
Just don't make it compulsory to listen to. Plus bin those shockingly unfunny 6.30pm R4 "comedy" programmes and I'd pay 10% more.
It’s the beeb. It’s us. Good and bad, cringe and creditworthy - many nations would love to have such a revered media institution projecting a sane, sensible respectable image around the world
It’s part of the whole package of Britishness, a crucial part of the brand. And at a wobbly moment for the country, we fuck with it at our peril
A bit like the Finland rumour, but with added fire and the potential to really erupt
We will be making a grave mistake if we let the BBC fall apart
Edit: and I really couldn't give a fuck who's headlining on the Pyramid Stage.
A massively successful source of soft power
and a world leading brand - these are assets. Hard to quantify but very definitely assets
And this British branding is deeply important. It’s one reason so many students want to come to the UK. It’s all tied together
A 'valve' tax applying only to retired spinsters in Sussex who still have radios you have to wait to warm up and prefer long wave may be an option; they pay no licence fee now as they threw the old black and white out after watching Virginia Wade win Wimbledon.
(National service lasted for 17 years. The BBC is 101. They're not particularly comparable.)
The ideal BBC programme would actually be Clarkson's farm: explores a niche industry, entertaining, touches on some policy issues without being political, nods to other interests like conservation, introduces some normal British people as stars.
1. Fee itself is controversial, as is public funding. Therefore a £15 increase would significantly increase the threat to the BBCs long term future for very minor short term benefit, mostly to current staff rather than the institution.
2. BBC costs less impacted by inflation than most businesses. Low energy use and peoples desire to work in the industry can be used to control wage inflation in a way that wouldnt be possible in care homes or construction.
3. Public institutions should set an example where possible. Communcal money raised by law should be spent wisely and fairly, however raised.
Netflix could disappear tomorrow. The brand is already diminishing as other streamers compete. It would not be missed
“The BBC” is a different beast altogether. It’s like “Wimbledon” in tennis
The brand is near priceless
End the public ownership model and set it up as a mutual, owned by the subscribers, with protection in law from demutualisation and/or takeover. Then set it free to produce, commission and charge what it wants.
If it uses the broadcast spectrum, which is a pure public good, then it cannot select who watches it. Thus the need for a licence fee, or else finance from tax revenue, which amounts to the same thing. Except that being dependent on tax-based revenue leaves it prone to political interference. Nevertheless the disgreeable aspects of enforcing the licence fee incline me to support taxation.
What else can the broadcast spectrum be used for?
The Chairman of the Republicans in Florida and his wife, who campaigns for any reference to anything other than heterosexual models to be banned from schools were having threesomes. When the wife was not available the third wheel called off saying she was really into the wife, not him. So, allegedly, he went and raped her.
Even the SNP would be embarrassed.
It is not at all comparable with hospitals being run on the cheap where we cant get the staff on current salaries and then decide we won't even keep those up with inflation resulting in more staff leaving, long queues and a load of people off work sick.
Yet the reality seems clear to me that (currently at least), they need opposite answers, hospitals need extra funding now, whereas the BBC really doesn't as much as I'm sure it would like some.
They were quite proud of this, because it meant that at least *some* Freeview systems wouldn’t support encryption. So encrypting the BBC channels became impossible.
Most setups support encrypted channels, in the end. All in software.
This is yet another issue the next Labour government is going to have to sort out.
I genuinely don't watch anything that requires a TV licence. No laws are broken, I don't have to respond to the increasingly threatening letters that Capita send out. Detector vans don't exist.
I honestly don't hate the BBC and enjoy their output on other streaming services, I just don't love them enough to pay a licence fee I don't require.
But, sure, I agree there are some overpaid presenters that the BBC should not worry about losing.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-world-loves-margaret-thatcher/
I'm calling bollox
But compared to my other subscriptions with Netflix, Disney and Amazon Prime, the BBC is very, very expensive for what I get.
*Okay that calculation is wrong because neither programme are on every week of the year but for the sake of this discussion I can't be arsed to go and find out exactly how many weeks a year they are showing.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/pensions-triple-lock-risk-tories-31583686
As stated before, my guess is this is a Conservative trick to lull SKS into abandoning the triple lock, and then including it in the Tory manifesto.