I see a backbencher wants a bill to allow recalls if someone switches parties. Whilst I think they usually should have a by election at that point I don't think it should be obligatory, and if be wary of opening the principal to local Gov, where switching is very common.
What if the MP has the whip removed? Does that count as switching parties?
We don't want to give the parties even more power after we've just seen Dom abuse it with Conservative backbenchers.
I would be in favour of abolishing the licensing fee, and funding the BBC through another taxation mechanism.
Those who advocate a subscription model miss the point entirely. The BBC is a public service, designed to fund public-service programming that would not be made in the free market. It is not the same as Netflix or SKY.
I have only read a smattering of posts so apologies if this has been covered but I think it is much harder being a right wing comedian. Your politics as a comedian is only relevant if you are being satirical and that tends to be anti-establishment. I think all parties get it in the neck when in Government, but as the comedy is coming from an idealistic stand point it is much easier to be critical from a left wing perspective. I like Geoff Norcott, and Gyles Brandreth, but they are more successful when neutral(ish). As soon as they try and go from the right it comes over as embarrassing.
It is what it is. It is a much much tougher job being a comedian from the right.
Both Alan Coren and Ian Hislop were/are successful by being anti establishment also only.
Comedians also need an audience and that audience is usually fairly left wing as they have both money and the willingness to pay to attend shows.
I would be in favour of abolishing the licensing fee, and funding the BBC through another taxation mechanism.
Those who advocate a subscription model miss the point entirely. The BBC is a public service, designed to fund public-service programming that would not be made in the free market. It is not the same as Netflix or SKY.
If the BBC is a public service then why are non-subscribers today not allowed its product lawfully?
I would be in favour of abolishing the licensing fee, and funding the BBC through another taxation mechanism.
Those who advocate a subscription model miss the point entirely. The BBC is a public service, designed to fund public-service programming that would not be made in the free market. It is not the same as Netflix or SKY.
If the BBC is a public service then why are non-subscribers today not allowed its product lawfully?
Hence my support for an alternative funding mechanism.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
First, SpaceX livestreamed it so you weren't reliant on blokes in car parks; second, you use the American spelling of licence; third, television licences are common in Europe, not just here and not just for the BBC.
ETA as it happens, I too do not have a telly.
That was it - to watch live events on any channel (eg sports from Sky) you need to pay the BBC licence fee. That's ridiculous.
Bollocks to whatever everyone else does in Europe. It's not right in today's entertainment environment.
My worry with the BBC is the same one as the reason why local news is dying - slight reductions in income results in continual cost cutting to the point that even people like me (who believe in the need for local news and are willing to pay for it) decide the news is so threadbare it's not worth paying for it.
On the return to the office thing, as I've said before our socially distanced office has around 30% of the desks available for use, which means space for around 20% of the staff nominally based there. Latest feedback is very few people going in. Of those visiting the office, I have no figures on who is taking sandwiches and who is going to Greggs for a steak bake at lunchtime - there isn't a Pret nearby.
Only a fraction of our offices have reopened so far - some more opening this week.
There's no Pret nearby? No wonder the economic hit of the Rona has been so severe!!!
I'd pay £3.99 for the News, £2.99 for documentaries, £3.99 for radio. And maybe £2.99 for sport.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
Don't be silly. You can only have pay radio if its online only. You'd get that bit free surely. I agree with the principle though. BBC make some excellent documentaries and drama and have an extensive back catalogue. Simply pull all their stuff off Amazon / Netflix as Disney did and then you have to pay for Britbox as the only place to get TopGear etc
Nobody is targeting anything. The BBC can show what it wants as long as I have the choice to pay for it or not. And to watch it or not.
Do you support it being owned by the Government?
I don;t mind who owns it. I donl;t mind what editorial choices it makes, or what programmes it screens.
I just want to have the option to not take the service and not pay for it if I want. They can paywall me from the website too, that would only be fair, as I might not want to pay.
I really don't get why people want to restrict access to a broadcaster with a mission to provide something for everyone. I pay the licence and I understand that in doing so, I'm helping to fund niche content such as Songs of Praise for the religious community and gardening shows etc. I don't like that sort of stuff, but I feel that a broadcaster that claims to represent the nation should be showing that kind of thing. This is the case in a lot of other European countries (France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy) who also use TV licences.
Now, I'm happy to change the method of funding for the BBC, whether that be the introduction of advertising such as with Channel 4, putting the charge as a blanket broadcasting tax onto electric bills (as Germany have recently done) or the BBC receiving a block of funding direct from government (as Spain do). However, no country with a public broadcaster, even in basket case economies such as Greece, has seriously considered that the right thing to do would be to restrict access to their public broadcaster that many people still do rely on and to introduce a subscription service. It's a death knell for an organisation that actually can make money from the programming it makes by selling it abroad, as the funding won't be there in the first place.
You are wrong about the funding of German system, the charge has nothing to do with the electricity bill. Each household has to pay a fee, regarless of whether people have a TV, watch online or listen to the many publicly funded radio stations. This is paid direcctly to one of the national broadcasters, who then distribute the monies to the various broadcasters.
In that sense it is even closer to Philip_Thopmson's claims of a broadcasting poll tax than the british TV license is.
You are correct, unfortunately by the point I went and checked on my information it was too late to edit. Sweden has moved to a similar system based on tax too. Greece does the electricity bills thing. My personal choice would be the Spanish system with the BBC receiving a block grant to keep it ad free or with limited advertising which would allow the niche public service programming to continue, but I'd enhance it by allowing the BBC to more directly profit from it's bigger hits rather than having to keep it's commercial arm at arms length.
What's wrong with keeping the existing subscription model but making the subscriptions voluntary?
The drop in income would mean axing services and shows aimed at certain demographics who might rely on it as the only bit of TV they like, or axing shows that can be sold abroad. I know which the BBC would rather do, but the charter requires it to provide those niche services, so you'd end up in a vicious circle of fewer big shows resulting in less revenue from abroad resulting in fewer subscriptions. In summary, it would kill the BBC stone dead. Not immediately, but eventually.
I know quite a few people would like that here or think that if it can't survive this way then it should be gone. It's a fair argument, but that would leave Britain without one of the more powerful tools in projecting its own culture abroad. Britain has always punched above its weight culturally and the BBC is definitely part of that reason.
If the services arent wanted by enough people to make them viable then they should be axed as to culturally lets do a comparison between two channels that launched for streaming at the same time
Britbox about 6$ in us and canada HBO about 18$ us and canada
Britbox barely made 1 mill subscribers HBO at 3 times the price made 8 mill subscribers
The bbc isnt the cultural god you think it is. It shows crap reality shows with the odd bit of "Culture" that not enough people like to be actually financially viable without bbc funding.
The strange thing I notice about culture is that it is always what the chattering classes think of culture but think the rest of us should pay for even though we dont want it.
To give an example, I went to the summer sessions last year in glasgow ticket price 60£ no subsidy 50k people odd each day. A lot payed substantially more as ticket touts hoover up tickets
Opera tickets at royal opera house about the same average though the seats range from a price of 5£ to 225£
The difference is one is a mass event frequented by the hoi polloi , the lower classes and is something a lot will be making sacrifices and saving to attend.
The opera on the other hand will be mostly attended by people who could easily afford paying 3 times the prices but would rather the rest of us subsidise their culture
I see a backbencher wants a bill to allow recalls if someone switches parties. Whilst I think they usually should have a by election at that point I don't think it should be obligatory, and if be wary of opening the principal to local Gov, where switching is very common.
Is it a Tory or a Corbynite? Whoever - they need to be reminded that under our system you vote for the individual not their party not their leader. Candidate defects from party x to party y doesn't matter - unless they want to have a party vote in which case its PR and some kind of list system.
I would be in favour of abolishing the licensing fee, and funding the BBC through another taxation mechanism.
Those who advocate a subscription model miss the point entirely. The BBC is a public service, designed to fund public-service programming that would not be made in the free market. It is not the same as Netflix or SKY.
If the BBC is a public service then why are non-subscribers today not allowed its product lawfully?
Hence my support for an alternative funding mechanism.
I've proposed a per-inch tax on the sale of new TVs, an increment on VAT for subscription to other broadcast services and a tax on online advertising as possible alternative sources of tax revenue for funding the BBC.
Taxing Sky/Netflix subscriptions directly is one of my favourites as it means the BBC has an interest in its competitors being successful.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
I have obviously been mistaken all these years that it’s possible to avoid paying VAT on chocolate by not buying it?
I already pay VAT on Netflix, D+ and Prime. Should I choose to watch a live broadcast on Prime online, what special role is the bbc carrying out for Prime without which they could not stream me that content?
Why on earth do we need a state owned dancing contest or soap opera paid for by a compulsory tax?
Its fascinating to me how some people still blindly cling to the past on this one.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
First, SpaceX livestreamed it so you weren't reliant on blokes in car parks; second, you use the American spelling of licence; third, television licences are common in Europe, not just here and not just for the BBC.
ETA as it happens, I too do not have a telly.
That was it - to watch live events on any channel (eg sports from Sky) you need to pay the BBC licence fee. That's ridiculous.
Bollocks to whatever everyone else does in Europe. It's not right in today's entertainment environment.
My worry with the BBC is the same one as the reason why local news is dying - slight reductions in income results in continual cost cutting to the point that even people like me (who believe in the need for local news and are willing to pay for it) decide the news is so threadbare it's not worth paying for it.
Of course it's the working capital problem. Pretty soon people won't even come into the shop.
But while I believe that the BBC is worth £157/year in particular in the light of the other subscription channels and their pricing points, I don't think it should be compulsory.
And it really drives me mad when they are interviewing, say, someone from RT and accusing them of being a "state broadcaster" and hence biased, when, for example, during the early days of lockdown, the entire BBC website was simply a government information channel.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
I have obviously been mistaken all these years that it’s possible to avoid paying VAT on chocolate by not buying it?
I already pay VAT on Netflix, D+ and Prime. Should I choose to watch a live broadcast on Prime online, what special role is the bbc carrying out for Prime without which they could not stream me that content?
Why on earth do we need a state owned dancing contest or soap opera paid for by a compulsory tax?
Its fascinating to me how some people still blindly cling to the past on this one.
Because as a society we pool our resources to pay for things that would be unaffordable or unviable for some under a free market. For example Welsh and Scots language programming, as well as niche BBC 4 programming.
The BBC also has a massive role to play in the discovery of talented young music artists through its local network - an area where Britain overachieves in cultural outreach.
Our cultural outreach would be diminished if the BBC ceased to exist in its present form.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that. I don’t have a license, I haven’t watched “telly” for a decade being quite happy with DVDs and YouTube and latterly Netflix, Prime and D+.
But I committed a CRIMINAL offence the other day. My little boy wanted to watch SpaceX launch the astronauts. So we picked up the iPad and watched a relatively obscure blogger who had setup a live camera feed from the car park at Cape Kennedy. The law says that while I can merrily watch as many penis documentaries on Channel 4 catchup player on my TV as I want, or surf the BBC website or listen to local BBC radio (all at the cost of crowding out the private sector), I am committing a criminal offence if I watch any such live “broadcast” on any device including an iPad.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
Seems an odd thing to get so worked up about.
Criminalising people because they don’t want any part in subsidising the salaries of all the bbc luvvies and their insidious propaganda? And simply expecting them to compete with the private sector on their own merits? The license fee is a state sponsored protection racket, it takes a lot of effort to stop them sending the red bolded letters from the debt collection agency they outsource it to.
I can detect the semblance of a point but you sound much angrier about it than I can relate to. Still, horses for courses.
As far as the licence fee is concerned, I'm conflicted. Part of me says television should be like any product or service - in other words, you can have as much as you want or are willing to pay for.
OTOH, it's a service which is vital for many such as those who are alone or house-bound or the elderly or arguably as part of the educative process and on that basis part of me says a "basic service" should be available free of charge to all - whether it's Freeview, Freesat or whatever.
The issue I have with that is which channels would sign up to the "basic service". I can imagine channels funded by the very wealthy which can subsist on advertising without having to rely on subscription being available but would that provide a genuinely plural availability of news services?
If the only news channels available were Fox UK or LBC UK or QAnon UK I'd be concerned those on the basic service would receive an unbalanced version of the news.
We have Freedom of Speech but I would much prefer broadcasters recognising the value of plural viewpoints (for those who deride The Mash Report, there's plenty of attacks on the "woke" left in the content and, to paraphrase a much wiser man, the only programmes less funny than those attacking Brexit would be those supporting Brexit) and ensuring a diversity of opinion was expressed.
Unfortunately, that's unenforceable - you can't make a right-wing media owner facilitate left-wing views (and vice versa) so it's (regrettably) competition between news outlets promoting (broadly) different political viewpoints.
I'd pay £3.99 for the News, £2.99 for documentaries, £3.99 for radio. And maybe £2.99 for sport.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
Don't be silly. You can only have pay radio if its online only. You'd get that bit free surely. I agree with the principle though. BBC make some excellent documentaries and drama and have an extensive back catalogue. Simply pull all their stuff off Amazon / Netflix as Disney did and then you have to pay for Britbox as the only place to get TopGear etc
Ah yes radio sneaks through - so how to pay for it?
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
I have obviously been mistaken all these years that it’s possible to avoid paying VAT on chocolate by not buying it?
I already pay VAT on Netflix, D+ and Prime. Should I choose to watch a live broadcast on Prime online, what special role is the bbc carrying out for Prime without which they could not stream me that content?
Why on earth do we need a state owned dancing contest or soap opera paid for by a compulsory tax?
Its fascinating to me how some people still blindly cling to the past on this one.
I've not paid any licence fee for more than a dozen years since the digital switchover.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
I suspect that sociallh conservative, older voters in the provinces would be those least keen on seeing the BBC and other institutions scrapped. Could be worth 20+ seats for Labour.
We need a longer term solution to funding the BBC, but I greatly appreciate the diversity of its output, even putting up with stuff like the Proms. If we only watch stuff we know that we will like, we will never expand our horizons.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
Taxes go to public goods.
The BBC is a private organisation that offers product to its subscribers, not a public good.
The status of the BBC is anomalous in that respect. Personally, I think it ought to be treated as a public service and funded from general taxation.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
I have obviously been mistaken all these years that it’s possible to avoid paying VAT on chocolate by not buying it?
I already pay VAT on Netflix, D+ and Prime. Should I choose to watch a live broadcast on Prime online, what special role is the bbc carrying out for Prime without which they could not stream me that content?
Why on earth do we need a state owned dancing contest or soap opera paid for by a compulsory tax?
Its fascinating to me how some people still blindly cling to the past on this one.
I've not paid any licence fee for more than a dozen years since the digital switchover.
I choose to pay for Netflix.
I'm missing the compulsion somewhere.
If you want to watch any live TV, you are compelled to pay for the licence fee by law.
Even if the live TV you want to watch is from a non-BBC channel. Even if the live TV you want to watch is streamed from the internet.
Anything live = pay the BBC, whether you are watching the BBC or not. I have no qualms with charging people who want to watch the BBC for watching the BBC and the technology to do so exists.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
Taxes go to public goods.
The BBC is a private organisation that offers product to its subscribers, not a public good.
The status of the BBC is anomalous in that respect. Personally, I think it ought to be treated as a public service and funded form general taxation.
The problem with that solution is that it then will suck up to the government of the day much more
I'd pay £3.99 for the News, £2.99 for documentaries, £3.99 for radio. And maybe £2.99 for sport.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
Don't be silly. You can only have pay radio if its online only. You'd get that bit free surely. I agree with the principle though. BBC make some excellent documentaries and drama and have an extensive back catalogue. Simply pull all their stuff off Amazon / Netflix as Disney did and then you have to pay for Britbox as the only place to get TopGear etc
Ah yes radio sneaks through - so how to pay for it?
I listen to Heart and have never once needed to pay for it. Funny that.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
Taxes go to public goods.
The BBC is a private organisation that offers product to its subscribers, not a public good.
The status of the BBC is anomalous in that respect. Personally, I think it ought to be treated as a public service and funded form general taxation.
The problem with that solution is that it then will suck up to the government of the day much more
And it will be competing with schools and hospitals for funding.
While we're on the subject of capitalism and products, I was walking down East Ham High Street and observing the 100 yard queues outside the school outfitters.
I had a radical thought - schools should provide school uniforms free of charge.
Why? The uniform is part of the school offer along with books, teachers and the rest of it. It's a huge cost on parents (and ongoing as children keep on growing) given there is virtually a whole wardrobe involved - clothes for school, clothes for sport, clothes for science classes and all the rest.
It's basically a tax on education given the clothing is mandatory - the schools should provide it and pay for it if they want the pupils to wear it.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
Taxes go to public goods.
The BBC is a private organisation that offers product to its subscribers, not a public good.
The status of the BBC is anomalous in that respect. Personally, I think it ought to be treated as a public service and funded form general taxation.
The problem with that solution is that it then will suck up to the government of the day much more
Needn't be if it's given a multi-year settlement in the same manner as the license fee gets reconfirmed.
And, as we've seen, the existence of the license fee generates resentment out of all proportion to the amount of money involved.
I'd pay £3.99 for the News, £2.99 for documentaries, £3.99 for radio. And maybe £2.99 for sport.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
Don't be silly. You can only have pay radio if its online only. You'd get that bit free surely. I agree with the principle though. BBC make some excellent documentaries and drama and have an extensive back catalogue. Simply pull all their stuff off Amazon / Netflix as Disney did and then you have to pay for Britbox as the only place to get TopGear etc
Ah yes radio sneaks through - so how to pay for it?
I listen to Heart and have never once needed to pay for it. Funny that.
Well first all that I had previously thought about you is now in doubt given that revelation.
But secondly, Rs1-5 I think have some great stuff (no idea about the newer kids on the block) and I doubt I'm alone in wanting or being happy to pay for it.
In a non-compulsion licence fee model it would be difficult to be able to pay for it directly.
On the return to the office thing, as I've said before our socially distanced office has around 30% of the desks available for use, which means space for around 20% of the staff nominally based there. Latest feedback is very few people going in. Of those visiting the office, I have no figures on who is taking sandwiches and who is going to Greggs for a steak bake at lunchtime - there isn't a Pret nearby.
Only a fraction of our offices have reopened so far - some more opening this week.
There's no Pret nearby? No wonder the economic hit of the Rona has been so severe!!!
Again, this point keeps being forgotten by the Mail and the rest of the "back to desks" brigade. Even if you had 100% of the staff champing at the bit to return to their desks, social distancing means 30-40% capacity at best.
As others have pointed out, and recognising for firms of young developers it seems to be rather different, I don't detect a groundswell of desire to return to the pre-Covid commuting lifestyle.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
I have obviously been mistaken all these years that it’s possible to avoid paying VAT on chocolate by not buying it?
I already pay VAT on Netflix, D+ and Prime. Should I choose to watch a live broadcast on Prime online, what special role is the bbc carrying out for Prime without which they could not stream me that content?
Why on earth do we need a state owned dancing contest or soap opera paid for by a compulsory tax?
Its fascinating to me how some people still blindly cling to the past on this one.
I've not paid any licence fee for more than a dozen years since the digital switchover.
I choose to pay for Netflix.
I'm missing the compulsion somewhere.
If you want to watch any live TV, you are compelled to pay for the licence fee by law.
Even if the live TV you want to watch is from a non-BBC channel. Even if the live TV you want to watch is streamed from the internet.
Anything live = pay the BBC, whether you are watching the BBC or not. I have no qualms with charging people who want to watch the BBC for watching the BBC and the technology to do so exists.
Right, so the government chooses to tax you for, I don't know, watching live sport, say, but not someone like me who doesn't. But I can still watch lots of TV. And not pay for a licence.
The government taxes insurance, even while making insurance a legal requirement to drive a car. That's a lot more sketchy than taxing people to watch live sport, or broadcasts of Coronation Street.
There are loads of taxes, for all sorts of things. The watching TV tax is far from being the most problematic.
I'd pay £3.99 for the News, £2.99 for documentaries, £3.99 for radio. And maybe £2.99 for sport.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
Don't be silly. You can only have pay radio if its online only. You'd get that bit free surely. I agree with the principle though. BBC make some excellent documentaries and drama and have an extensive back catalogue. Simply pull all their stuff off Amazon / Netflix as Disney did and then you have to pay for Britbox as the only place to get TopGear etc
Ah yes radio sneaks through - so how to pay for it?
I listen to Heart and have never once needed to pay for it. Funny that.
You like the endless inane adverts found on commercial radio then?
I'd pay £3.99 for the News, £2.99 for documentaries, £3.99 for radio. And maybe £2.99 for sport.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
Don't be silly. You can only have pay radio if its online only. You'd get that bit free surely. I agree with the principle though. BBC make some excellent documentaries and drama and have an extensive back catalogue. Simply pull all their stuff off Amazon / Netflix as Disney did and then you have to pay for Britbox as the only place to get TopGear etc
Ah yes radio sneaks through - so how to pay for it?
I listen to Heart and have never once needed to pay for it. Funny that.
Well first all that I had previously thought about you is now in doubt given that revelation.
But secondly, Rs1-5 I think have some great stuff (no idea about the newer kids on the block) and I doubt I'm alone in wanting or being happy to pay for it.
In a non-compulsion licence fee model it would be difficult to be able to pay for it directly.
I'd pay good money to listen to (for example) Kermode & Mayo. But in a purely commercial universe, the program might never have been developed in the first place.
It’s an absurdity, an obscenity and a relic. It simply has to go. I will be delighted if this becomes the central election issue in 2024/5 and will happily dance on the BBC’s grave when the day comes.
I suspect that sociallh conservative, older voters in the provinces would be those least keen on seeing the BBC and other institutions scrapped. Could be worth 20+ seats for Labour.
We need a longer term solution to funding the BBC, but I greatly appreciate the diversity of its output, even putting up with stuff like the Proms. If we only watch stuff we know that we will like, we will never expand our horizons.
If you get more than £160 of value from the bbc then that’s fantastic, you carry on subscribing. But don’t expect everyone else to continue subsidising your subscription if from time to time we wish to watch live sport or rocket launches on the internet from another provider.
Beeb doesn’t need to be scrapped, it needs to be fully commercialised and IPOd while it’s still worth something. If they can’t do that soon then scrapped it will ultimately end up being.
And I’m perfectly prepared to have a conversation on things the bbc does that provide a public good that would be met more efficiently and appropriately through the govt budget. World Service, Shipping Forecast or whatever else. But you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that Graham Norton (aka Hollywood promotion), Strictly or Stenders tick the public good box. Also for that matter doccos. Even Attenborough has decamped to Netflix and shown his programming can be perfectly well commissioned and executed by the private sector.
I'd pay £3.99 for the News, £2.99 for documentaries, £3.99 for radio. And maybe £2.99 for sport.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
Don't be silly. You can only have pay radio if its online only. You'd get that bit free surely. I agree with the principle though. BBC make some excellent documentaries and drama and have an extensive back catalogue. Simply pull all their stuff off Amazon / Netflix as Disney did and then you have to pay for Britbox as the only place to get TopGear etc
Ah yes radio sneaks through - so how to pay for it?
I listen to Heart and have never once needed to pay for it. Funny that.
You like the endless inane adverts found on commercial radio then?
Its better than the endless inane talking from the DJs on the BBC.
I'd pay £3.99 for the News, £2.99 for documentaries, £3.99 for radio. And maybe £2.99 for sport.
So voila there's my £14/month plus I would feel some element of control over it.
Don't be silly. You can only have pay radio if its online only. You'd get that bit free surely. I agree with the principle though. BBC make some excellent documentaries and drama and have an extensive back catalogue. Simply pull all their stuff off Amazon / Netflix as Disney did and then you have to pay for Britbox as the only place to get TopGear etc
Ah yes radio sneaks through - so how to pay for it?
I listen to Heart and have never once needed to pay for it. Funny that.
Well first all that I had previously thought about you is now in doubt given that revelation.
But secondly, Rs1-5 I think have some great stuff (no idea about the newer kids on the block) and I doubt I'm alone in wanting or being happy to pay for it.
In a non-compulsion licence fee model it would be difficult to be able to pay for it directly.
I'd pay good money to listen to (for example) Kermode & Mayo. But in a purely commercial universe, the program might never have been developed in the first place.
It would be a podcast and I have no idea about the revenue models for podcasts - they all seem to be free?
Mr. JS, to be fair, it isn't only the BBC that's declined.
ITV became ridiculous between Tom Bradby's daft asides and Robert Peston's rambling personal views. I'm sure news was present at some point, but wading through the waffle isn't fantastic.
I used to watch news a fair bit and stopped maybe a year ago. Been surprised how little I miss it. Except for occasionally catching Outside Source (BBC News around 9pm for foreign matters) I rarely watch anything.
Given the programs so many of you despise, East Enders, Strictly etc are the staple diet of large numbers of the viewing public many of whom can’t afford sky or need it it will be a very brave political party that pulls the plug. Many people don’t want or understand multiple bills for their viewing.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
I have only read a smattering of posts so apologies if this has been covered but I think it is much harder being a right wing comedian. Your politics as a comedian is only relevant if you are being satirical and that tends to be anti-establishment. I think all parties get it in the neck when in Government, but as the comedy is coming from an idealistic stand point it is much easier to be critical from a left wing perspective. I like Geoff Norcott, and Gyles Brandreth, but they are more successful when neutral(ish). As soon as they try and go from the right it comes over as embarrassing.
It is what it is. It is a much much tougher job being a comedian from the right.
Both Alan Coren and Ian Hislop were/are successful by being anti establishment also only.
Comedians also need an audience and that audience is usually fairly left wing as they have both money and the willingness to pay to attend shows.
TV comedy tends to make left of centre jokes against right of centre incumbency, which is what we have here and in the US at present. If the governments were left of centre they would be the butt of the joke, It has always been thus. TWTWTW critical of Wilson, The Thick of It parodying the Blair government. Conversely Spitting Image/Ben Elton critical of Mrs Thatcher.
As the BBC is almost irrelevant anyway banning "left wing" comedy from the BBC only serves to illustrates the bigger picture, namely that the group currently in government can't accept criticism.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
Given the programs so many of you despise, East Enders, Strictly etc are the staple diet of large numbers of the viewing public many of whom can’t afford sky or need it it will be a very brave political party that pulls the plug. Many people don’t want or understand multiple bills for their viewing.
DESPISE STRICTLY????!!!!!
OK when Nats left I did go into a slight depression but I am a huge fan.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
The BBC doesn't need to be scrapped, it just needs to go back to neutral news reporting like it always used to do until about 10 years ago.
Come, come, people like yourself would have been saying twenty years ago that the BBC was the " Blair Broadcasting Corporation". Having your cake and eating it?
Given the programs so many of you despise, East Enders, Strictly etc are the staple diet of large numbers of the viewing public many of whom can’t afford sky or need it it will be a very brave political party that pulls the plug. Many people don’t want or understand multiple bills for their viewing.
If they want to continue to receive those, why can't they voluntarily subscribe for them?
Its not difficult. The BBC is already a subscription service, why not make it a voluntary subscription service?
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Just out of interest what are those other government funded services?
Oh, that's good. She was a really good constituency MP, and I was quite concerned when she disappeared off Twitter after losing a really hard fought battle in Angus.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
The compulsion element of the license fee is grotesque and I find it a genuine puzzle why there are those who cannot see that.
All taxes involve a degree of compulsion. What is special about watching live television broadcasts - as opposed to buying chocolate - that it is grotesque to tax one but not the other?
Get over yourself.
I have obviously been mistaken all these years that it’s possible to avoid paying VAT on chocolate by not buying it?
I already pay VAT on Netflix, D+ and Prime. Should I choose to watch a live broadcast on Prime online, what special role is the bbc carrying out for Prime without which they could not stream me that content?
Why on earth do we need a state owned dancing contest or soap opera paid for by a compulsory tax?
Its fascinating to me how some people still blindly cling to the past on this one.
I've not paid any licence fee for more than a dozen years since the digital switchover.
I choose to pay for Netflix.
I'm missing the compulsion somewhere.
If you want to watch any live TV, you are compelled to pay for the licence fee by law.
Even if the live TV you want to watch is from a non-BBC channel. Even if the live TV you want to watch is streamed from the internet.
Anything live = pay the BBC, whether you are watching the BBC or not. I have no qualms with charging people who want to watch the BBC for watching the BBC and the technology to do so exists.
Right, so the government chooses to tax you for, I don't know, watching live sport, say, but not someone like me who doesn't. But I can still watch lots of TV. And not pay for a licence.
The government taxes insurance, even while making insurance a legal requirement to drive a car. That's a lot more sketchy than taxing people to watch live sport, or broadcasts of Coronation Street.
There are loads of taxes, for all sorts of things. The watching TV tax is far from being the most problematic.
The bbc tax is a hypothecated tax that only serves to enrich those that work there, beyond the level that would be possible in a free market. As I said, it’s a protection racket.
As far as I can remember, all other taxes go into a central pot for distribution according to the whims of our democratically elected leaders.
You are right that inefficient taxes such as on insurance are dumb, especially when we tax behaviours that should be encouraged from a societal perspective (e.g. gym membership).
But that’s no justification at all for keeping the BBC tax in place just to keep funding their £5bn in annual opex. Despite which by the way they are still running a half a billion pension deficit that continues to widen each year.
While we're on the subject of capitalism and products, I was walking down East Ham High Street and observing the 100 yard queues outside the school outfitters.
I had a radical thought - schools should provide school uniforms free of charge.
Why? The uniform is part of the school offer along with books, teachers and the rest of it. It's a huge cost on parents (and ongoing as children keep on growing) given there is virtually a whole wardrobe involved - clothes for school, clothes for sport, clothes for science classes and all the rest.
It's basically a tax on education given the clothing is mandatory - the schools should provide it and pay for it if they want the pupils to wear it.
Elaborate and expensive school uniform requirements are a form of covert selection schools use to keep 'undesirables' out.
I was looking at that earlier. You wouldn't believe it, but Trump's approval rating is currently higher than the majority of his presidency.
He's peaking at the right time.
I do wonder what the Dems are going to do when their guy looks to be on the slide. Mr Market is already there. Let's see if the polls start to follow him.
On the slide. Against Donald Trump. Sheesh.....
Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.
Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.
Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.
Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.
Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.
I want the BBC to go subscription to protect it. Become a state-licensed commercial enterprise and the pious won't be able to complain about having to pay for "bias". It isn't biased either way but that doesn't stop both hard left and hard right complaining about its hard right or hard left bias.
Anyway, the BBC is short of cash, yet cash is available commercially to make sensational television. The license fee stops the BBC being a British HBO, so lets cut it free. If content is worth paying for in this omnichannel world then people will pay. If it isn't they won't. So you end up with sensational quality.
It would be a podcast and I have no idea about the revenue models for podcasts - they all seem to be free?
There is quite a lot of advertising and sponsorship for podcasting. And there is also the likes of Apple, Audible and Spotify chasing after exclusive content.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Just out of interest what are those other government funded services?
I never travel on trains yet I am happy with a huge government subsidy for one, because I know many people rely on them.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characteristics: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by law the BBC is not made available to all members of the public and by definition it is not a public good.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
Not at all. I just understand the meaning of the term "public good". The BBC does not meet that term, since it excludes by law anyone who hasn't paid the licence fee. A public good can't do that.
Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.
Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.
Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.
Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.
Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.
Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.
Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?
Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".
@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.
I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
I'm reminded of Channel 4's response to her complaints about their more, erm, adventurous films. They put a red circle on them, and got even more viewers: certainly in the shared house I then lived in during my first job.
I want the BBC to go subscription to protect it. Become a state-licensed commercial enterprise and the pious won't be able to complain about having to pay for "bias". It isn't biased either way but that doesn't stop both hard left and hard right complaining about its hard right or hard left bias.
Anyway, the BBC is short of cash, yet cash is available commercially to make sensational television. The license fee stops the BBC being a British HBO, so lets cut it free. If content is worth paying for in this omnichannel world then people will pay. If it isn't they won't. So you end up with sensational quality.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".
The BBC is not non-excludable so it is not a public good.
We’re not talking about an economic theory. We’re talking about what we as a society consider a public good in common parlance.
So you want to use the phrase public good but without meeting the definition of the phrase public good? 😕
If you're going to use a phrase that has a meaning then you should meet the meaning of the phrase. If you wanted to say public service then I wouldn't object to that - it can be debated how well the BBC does its job in public service broadcasting but that is part of its remit. But public good means something different and the BBC is not that.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
Not at all. I just understand the meaning of the term "public good". The BBC does not meet that term, since it excludes by law anyone who hasn't paid the licence fee. A public good can't do that.
I am quite happy to pay the licence fee solely for Radios 2 and 4 and BBC4.
Thirty five years after I last heard it on Capital Radio the Currie Motors earworm "Currie Motors, nice people to do business with" still lives on in my head. It's like tinnitus. Let me pay the licence fee, so I can avoid this mindlessness!
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".
It would be a podcast and I have no idea about the revenue models for podcasts - they all seem to be free?
I think most podcasts are (if revenue-raising at all) ad-supported. A mid-podcast ad where the presenter reads out a 30-second ad, especially if it's a 'curated' ad relevant to the podcast theme where the presenter is saying "I use this myself", is a high-value ad and a popular podcast can AIUI get significantly more money that way than you'd get as youtube ad revenue. (The downside is you have to sort out the ads yourself and you won't get much interest until your listener numbers are big enough.) You can also take the Patreon route, possibly offering extra bonus content to subscribers/supporters.
(Source: discussion of some of this stuff on a podcast hosted by a guy who runs a 'podcast network', ie a company that does a lot of podcasts and handles the finding-companies-to-sponsor-podcasts part of it.)
On the topic of the BBC, it's worthwhile noting that YouTube / Adobe / smartphones have resulted in an extraordinary amount of high quality content being created, much of which fulfills the criteria of public service programming. (I might note that the same his true of podcasts wrt radio.)
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
Not at all. I just understand the meaning of the term "public good". The BBC does not meet that term, since it excludes by law anyone who hasn't paid the licence fee. A public good can't do that.
I am quite happy to pay the licence fee solely for Radios 2 and 4 and BBC4.
Thirty five years after I last heard it on Capital Radio the Currie Motors earworm "Currie Motors, nice people to do business with" still lives on in my head. It's like tinnitus. Let me pay the licence fee, so I can avoid this mindlessness!
My student days were full of "Wolverhampton Windows!" on BRMB.
@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.
I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.
But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.
Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".
The BBC is not non-excludable so it is not a public good.
We’re not talking about an economic theory. We’re talking about what we as a society consider a public good in common parlance.
So you want to use the phrase public good but without meeting the definition of the phrase public good? 😕
If you're going to use a phrase that has a meaning then you should meet the meaning of the phrase. If you wanted to say public service then I wouldn't object to that - it can be debated how well the BBC does its job in public service broadcasting but that is part of its remit. But public good means something different and the BBC is not that.
You may be using an economic concept but I am not. As far as I’m concerned, what the public consider to be in the public good is worth funding.
Public good is subjective, and changes over time. Once upon a time we thought it was in the public good for the state to own car manufacturers. Clearly we don’t now.
You can keep imposing your definition of “public good” into my argument if you want, but it changes nothing. Your opinion is still an opinion. My opinion is still an opinion.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
Not at all. I just understand the meaning of the term "public good". The BBC does not meet that term, since it excludes by law anyone who hasn't paid the licence fee. A public good can't do that.
I am quite happy to pay the licence fee solely for Radios 2 and 4 and BBC4.
Thirty five years after I last heard it on Capital Radio the Currie Motors earworm "Currie Motors, nice people to do business with" still lives on in my head. It's like tinnitus. Let me pay the licence fee, so I can avoid this mindlessness!
My student days were full of "Wolverhampton Windows!" on BRMB.
It would be a podcast and I have no idea about the revenue models for podcasts - they all seem to be free?
I think most podcasts are (if revenue-raising at all) ad-supported. A mid-podcast ad where the presenter reads out a 30-second ad, especially if it's a 'curated' ad relevant to the podcast theme where the presenter is saying "I use this myself", is a high-value ad and a popular podcast can AIUI get significantly more money that way than you'd get as youtube ad revenue. (The downside is you have to sort out the ads yourself and you won't get much interest until your listener numbers are big enough.) You can also take the Patreon route, possibly offering extra bonus content to subscribers/supporters.
(Source: discussion of some of this stuff on a podcast hosted by a guy who runs a 'podcast network', ie a company that does a lot of podcasts and handles the finding-companies-to-sponsor-podcasts part of it.)
YouTubers also tend to make most of their money via sponsorship, product placement, etc.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
Not at all. I just understand the meaning of the term "public good". The BBC does not meet that term, since it excludes by law anyone who hasn't paid the licence fee. A public good can't do that.
By that strict definition the NHS in England does not provide a public good because people have to pay for prescriptions.
It would be a podcast and I have no idea about the revenue models for podcasts - they all seem to be free?
I think most podcasts are (if revenue-raising at all) ad-supported. A mid-podcast ad where the presenter reads out a 30-second ad, especially if it's a 'curated' ad relevant to the podcast theme where the presenter is saying "I use this myself", is a high-value ad and a popular podcast can AIUI get significantly more money that way than you'd get as youtube ad revenue. (The downside is you have to sort out the ads yourself and you won't get much interest until your listener numbers are big enough.) You can also take the Patreon route, possibly offering extra bonus content to subscribers/supporters.
(Source: discussion of some of this stuff on a podcast hosted by a guy who runs a 'podcast network', ie a company that does a lot of podcasts and handles the finding-companies-to-sponsor-podcasts part of it.)
Ah yes that's a good point and I had forgotten that. Yes I recall hearing those ads mid- or pre-podcast.
Not the worst thing in the world.
In fact one of the most amusing (to me) was the Serial (Adnan Syed) podcast sponsored (so I thought to my Brit ear) by "Zipper Critterz". I realised some time afterwards it was Zip Recruiters!!
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
I'm reminded of Channel 4's response to her complaints about their more, erm, adventurous films. They put a red circle on them, and got even more viewers: certainly in the shared house I then lived in during my first job.
As the joke at the time went: Channel 4 had a red circle; the BBC had: "written by Dennis Potter".
Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.
Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.
Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.
Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.
Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.
Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.
Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?
Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.
I heard a hispanic caller to a US radio station say she is for Trump because she doesn't want the US to become like the country she emigrated from.
There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Philip and his party seem to consider themselves the arbiters of media discourse. Latter day Mary Whitehouses, one and all!
Not at all. I just understand the meaning of the term "public good". The BBC does not meet that term, since it excludes by law anyone who hasn't paid the licence fee. A public good can't do that.
I am quite happy to pay the licence fee solely for Radios 2 and 4 and BBC4.
Thirty five years after I last heard it on Capital Radio the Currie Motors earworm "Currie Motors, nice people to do business with" still lives on in my head. It's like tinnitus. Let me pay the licence fee, so I can avoid this mindlessness!
My student days were full of "Wolverhampton Windows!" on BRMB.
@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.
I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.
But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.
Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?
I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.
Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.
@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.
I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.
But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.
Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?
I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.
Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.
People would only choose not to pay if they found the BBC not worthwhile, in which case they shouldn't have to pay. Any more than those who don't have a licence fee today aren't forced to pay.
@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.
I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.
But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.
Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?
I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.
Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.
It can't be a terribly enormous benefit to the public then, can it?
Just as Trump's poll share has been remarkably stable, so has Biden's.
Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.
Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.
Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.
Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.
Since we don't have the crosstabs, the Emerson poll has to be put in the bin as well.
Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?
Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.
I heard a hispanic caller to a US radio station say she is for Trump because she doesn't want the US to become like the country she emigrated from.
There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.
I've always thought Trump had more in common with Latin American strongmen (particularly the kinds with excessive numbers of medals) than pretty much any other type of leader, so are you sure she didn't say she wanted the US to be more like those countries?
@Philip_Thompson your argument flip flops between the concept of the BBC, and it’s funding model. They are two separate issues.
I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.
But the BBC already is a subscription model. The only difference is we're obliged to subscribe to it even if we want to watch something else.
Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?
I’ve already explained why. It would not be sustainable because people would choose not to pay.
Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.
People would only choose not to pay if they found the BBC not worthwhile, in which case they shouldn't have to pay. Any more than those who don't have a licence fee today aren't forced to pay.
Exactly my point. I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish in this area - just like I don’t think people should be able to choose to be selfish and not fund the NHS.
I never watch the BBC but I recognise that just because I don’t use it doesn’t mean its not worth paying for.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
Name one thing that is not a public good that you think people should be compelled to pay for.
What? Just because you think the BBC isn’t a public good doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Its not. Public good has a definition and it is not a public good by definition.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characterists: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by definition the BBC is not a public good.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong. You’re portraying your opinion as a fact and it just isn’t. It is an opinion.
Its not an opinion, it is literally the definition of the term "public good".
Comments
We don't want to give the parties even more power after we've just seen Dom abuse it with Conservative backbenchers.
Those who advocate a subscription model miss the point entirely. The BBC is a public service, designed to fund public-service programming that would not be made in the free market. It is not the same as Netflix or SKY.
Britbox about 6$ in us and canada
HBO about 18$ us and canada
Britbox barely made 1 mill subscribers
HBO at 3 times the price made 8 mill subscribers
The bbc isnt the cultural god you think it is. It shows crap reality shows with the odd bit of "Culture" that not enough people like to be actually financially viable without bbc funding.
The strange thing I notice about culture is that it is always what the chattering classes think of culture but think the rest of us should pay for even though we dont want it.
To give an example, I went to the summer sessions last year in glasgow ticket price 60£ no subsidy 50k people odd each day. A lot payed substantially more as ticket touts hoover up tickets
Opera tickets at royal opera house about the same average though the seats range from a price of 5£ to 225£
source
http://static.roh.org.uk/seatmaps/2016-17/autumn/autumn-seat-price-plan-201617.pdf
The difference is one is a mass event frequented by the hoi polloi , the lower classes and is something a lot will be making sacrifices and saving to attend.
The opera on the other hand will be mostly attended by people who could easily afford paying 3 times the prices but would rather the rest of us subsidise their culture
Taxing Sky/Netflix subscriptions directly is one of my favourites as it means the BBC has an interest in its competitors being successful.
I already pay VAT on Netflix, D+ and Prime. Should I choose to watch a live broadcast on Prime online, what special role is the bbc carrying out for Prime without which they could not stream me that content?
Why on earth do we need a state owned dancing contest or soap opera paid for by a compulsory tax?
Its fascinating to me how some people still blindly cling to the past on this one.
But while I believe that the BBC is worth £157/year in particular in the light of the other subscription channels and their pricing points, I don't think it should be compulsory.
And it really drives me mad when they are interviewing, say, someone from RT and accusing them of being a "state broadcaster" and hence biased, when, for example, during the early days of lockdown, the entire BBC website was simply a government information channel.
The BBC also has a massive role to play in the discovery of talented young music artists through its local network - an area where Britain overachieves in cultural outreach.
Our cultural outreach would be diminished if the BBC ceased to exist in its present form.
As far as the licence fee is concerned, I'm conflicted. Part of me says television should be like any product or service - in other words, you can have as much as you want or are willing to pay for.
OTOH, it's a service which is vital for many such as those who are alone or house-bound or the elderly or arguably as part of the educative process and on that basis part of me says a "basic service" should be available free of charge to all - whether it's Freeview, Freesat or whatever.
The issue I have with that is which channels would sign up to the "basic service". I can imagine channels funded by the very wealthy which can subsist on advertising without having to rely on subscription being available but would that provide a genuinely plural availability of news services?
If the only news channels available were Fox UK or LBC UK or QAnon UK I'd be concerned those on the basic service would receive an unbalanced version of the news.
We have Freedom of Speech but I would much prefer broadcasters recognising the value of plural viewpoints (for those who deride The Mash Report, there's plenty of attacks on the "woke" left in the content and, to paraphrase a much wiser man, the only programmes less funny than those attacking Brexit would be those supporting Brexit) and ensuring a diversity of opinion was expressed.
Unfortunately, that's unenforceable - you can't make a right-wing media owner facilitate left-wing views (and vice versa) so it's (regrettably) competition between news outlets promoting (broadly) different political viewpoints.
I choose to pay for Netflix.
I'm missing the compulsion somewhere.
We need a longer term solution to funding the BBC, but I greatly appreciate the diversity of its output, even putting up with stuff like the Proms. If we only watch stuff we know that we will like, we will never expand our horizons.
Personally, I think it ought to be treated as a public service and funded from general taxation.
If you want to watch any live TV, you are compelled to pay for the licence fee by law.
Even if the live TV you want to watch is from a non-BBC channel.
Even if the live TV you want to watch is streamed from the internet.
Anything live = pay the BBC, whether you are watching the BBC or not. I have no qualms with charging people who want to watch the BBC for watching the BBC and the technology to do so exists.
I had a radical thought - schools should provide school uniforms free of charge.
Why? The uniform is part of the school offer along with books, teachers and the rest of it. It's a huge cost on parents (and ongoing as children keep on growing) given there is virtually a whole wardrobe involved - clothes for school, clothes for sport, clothes for science classes and all the rest.
It's basically a tax on education given the clothing is mandatory - the schools should provide it and pay for it if they want the pupils to wear it.
And, as we've seen, the existence of the license fee generates resentment out of all proportion to the amount of money involved.
But secondly, Rs1-5 I think have some great stuff (no idea about the newer kids on the block) and I doubt I'm alone in wanting or being happy to pay for it.
In a non-compulsion licence fee model it would be difficult to be able to pay for it directly.
As others have pointed out, and recognising for firms of young developers it seems to be rather different, I don't detect a groundswell of desire to return to the pre-Covid commuting lifestyle.
As the song says "those days are gone now".
The government taxes insurance, even while making insurance a legal requirement to drive a car. That's a lot more sketchy than taxing people to watch live sport, or broadcasts of Coronation Street.
There are loads of taxes, for all sorts of things. The watching TV tax is far from being the most problematic.
But in a purely commercial universe, the program might never have been developed in the first place.
Beeb doesn’t need to be scrapped, it needs to be fully commercialised and IPOd while it’s still worth something. If they can’t do that soon then scrapped it will ultimately end up being.
And I’m perfectly prepared to have a conversation on things the bbc does that provide a public good that would be met more efficiently and appropriately through the govt budget. World Service, Shipping Forecast or whatever else. But you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that Graham Norton (aka Hollywood promotion), Strictly or Stenders tick the public good box. Also for that matter doccos. Even Attenborough has decamped to Netflix and shown his programming can be perfectly well commissioned and executed by the private sector.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1uKNAMU1Qw
ITV became ridiculous between Tom Bradby's daft asides and Robert Peston's rambling personal views. I'm sure news was present at some point, but wading through the waffle isn't fantastic.
I used to watch news a fair bit and stopped maybe a year ago. Been surprised how little I miss it. Except for occasionally catching Outside Source (BBC News around 9pm for foreign matters) I rarely watch anything.
There’s many government funded services I have never used but recognise their importance.
Why the obsession by some with the BBC? Easy - they see it as the “enemy” in their bigoted and ignorant “culture war”. It’s as simple as that. On the Left and the Right.
As the BBC is almost irrelevant anyway banning "left wing" comedy from the BBC only serves to illustrates the bigger picture, namely that the group currently in government can't accept criticism.
OK when Nats left I did go into a slight depression but I am a huge fan.
Its not difficult. The BBC is already a subscription service, why not make it a voluntary subscription service?
As far as I can remember, all other taxes go into a central pot for distribution according to the whims of our democratically elected leaders.
You are right that inefficient taxes such as on insurance are dumb, especially when we tax behaviours that should be encouraged from a societal perspective (e.g. gym membership).
But that’s no justification at all for keeping the BBC tax in place just to keep funding their £5bn in annual opex. Despite which by the way they are still running a half a billion pension deficit that continues to widen each year.
Over the past five months since he effectively grabbed the nomination, Biden's been at 49.9% +/- 1.2% in the 538 poll of polls. He's currently at 50.3%.
Nothing, not the convention, nor Black Lives Matter, nor the reopening (and then the reclosing) of America has made any meaningful difference to Biden's share.
Now, he might be about to drop. But it seems more likely that we see Trump continue to eat into the Don't Know vote as we get closer to the election. But unless Biden actually starts dropping, or Biden's voters don't turn out on the day, or Biden's vote is incredibly poorly distributed, then it's pretty tough for Trump to win this.
Not, impossible, obviously. But the narrative of Trump gaining is almost entirely an artifact of him cutting into DK/WNV, rather than Biden slipping.
Anyway, the BBC is short of cash, yet cash is available commercially to make sensational television. The license fee stops the BBC being a British HBO, so lets cut it free. If content is worth paying for in this omnichannel world then people will pay. If it isn't they won't. So you end up with sensational quality.
https://www.sportbible.com/ufc/news-mma-the-crazy-numbers-behind-joe-rogans-mammoth-deal-with-spotify-20200901
Those figures are likely wrong, but it shows the scale of revenues that the top podcasters can now earn.
A public good is a good made available to all members of the public and to be a public good something needs two characteristics: non-rivalry and non-excludability.
The BBC meets the non-rivalry test but it fails the non-excludability one. Anyone who doesn't pay the licence fee is forbidden by law from consuming its products. Therefore by law the BBC is not made available to all members of the public and by definition it is not a public good.
Hispanic support for Trump at 37% - seriously? Biden leads 50-42 among Independents but is only two up overall - seriously?
Without knowing who has been sampled and where this poll is rubbish even though it gives the Trump supporters on here (and those who want Trump to win just yo annoy "the lefties") some encouragement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)
The BBC is not non-excludable so it is not a public good.
I believe the concept of the BBC needs to be preserved, but am happy for the funding model to change. However that funding model cannot be a subscription service because then the BBC as we know it ceases to exist. The whole point of the BBC is pooled resources to fund programming that would not be commercially viable.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0901/1162565-leaving-cert-grades-reduced/
If you're going to use a phrase that has a meaning then you should meet the meaning of the phrase. If you wanted to say public service then I wouldn't object to that - it can be debated how well the BBC does its job in public service broadcasting but that is part of its remit. But public good means something different and the BBC is not that.
Thirty five years after I last heard it on Capital Radio the Currie Motors earworm "Currie Motors, nice people to do business with" still lives on in my head. It's like tinnitus. Let me pay the licence fee, so I can avoid this mindlessness!
If you meant that the BBC is not a Public Good (it is demonstrably not) then fine - so what is it?
(Source: discussion of some of this stuff on a podcast hosted by a guy who runs a 'podcast network', ie a company that does a lot of podcasts and handles the finding-companies-to-sponsor-podcasts part of it.)
Why can't it be a subscription model that stands on its own two feet? How many people are wanting to only watch something else and would cancel their pre-existing BBC subscription?
Public good is subjective, and changes over time. Once upon a time we thought it was in the public good for the state to own car manufacturers. Clearly we don’t now.
You can keep imposing your definition of “public good” into my argument if you want, but it changes nothing. Your opinion is still an opinion. My opinion is still an opinion.
Not the worst thing in the world.
In fact one of the most amusing (to me) was the Serial (Adnan Syed) podcast sponsored (so I thought to my Brit ear) by "Zipper Critterz". I realised some time afterwards it was Zip Recruiters!!
There's a reason they risk their lives to cross that rio grande you know.
Just like the NHS would not be sustainable (in its present form) if people could choose not to pay.
https://twitter.com/rglenner/status/1300401340250820610
I believe it is good for the public to eat broccoli every day but it would be difficult to introduce a tax or element of compulsion about it.