Future of the TV licence fee

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well Mr Schapps clearly thinks it is poor value for money and threatens the license fee unless it supports the Tories more ... amazing how playground bullying still prevails eh?

[french frank]

Partly current affairs, partly very relevant to the current discussions. Apols to aka if he wanted to concentrate on the political angle (perhaps he could start the thread again for that? - ta).

Here, perhaps, a less 'party' political angle. It has relevance to the kind of reply one might give. Radio 3 - I assure you! - is underfunded for the kind of service I (me) would like it to be. Should the argument be that it doesn't get a big enough % of the existing fee, or that the licence fee is not enough?

[MrGongGong]

If ever a face needed punching ...................(and i'm not usually a violent man by any means )

Here they go again repeating the sh*te about how "biased" the BBC is

The "a big boy did it and ran away"
"Unfairness" nonsense hopefully wont wash ................... (except with the clarinettists ? )

[aeolium]

Though Shapps is someone I hardly ever agree with, I think he's right in claiming the BBC is over-secretive. Why shouldn't figures be provided for all salaries over a certain level or explanations provided for dropping programmes or stations? Why does the BBC resort to the excuse of commercial confidentiality in refusing to disclose information sought under an FoI request? There is a question of trust here and the BBC ought to be as open as possible.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well ok to the thread logic ff, but it is a tax to pay for the BBC not simply TV .so perhaps we could call it something else ....and failure to pay should be decriminalised ...

one of the major arguments of the managerialist creed is that high salaries are needed to beat the competition to the talent .... [amazing how this applies at the top when in industries where it may well be valid [football eg] it is the workers who make the loot, not the managers.... no such statement [the talent/pay one ] is always tru or always false but what is true is that it opens a Pandora's box of swirling inflation of pay rates and perks and narratives of self worth and importance that bear no relationship to the ordinary reality of talent ... so first can we take everyone on a walk through the cemeteries of the nation and pay homage to all the indispensable people interred therein .... exceptional talent is just that exceptional, so while happy to pay Eric & Ernie their millions for giving out inimitable joy under terms dictated by the market in such exceptional talent, let us have no pretence that the suits jobs are subject to any such market forces ... no DG appointed by the usual process as Thompson was, but paid 1/3rd his pay would have damaged the institution as much as he did, and likely done as much good or better ... the Birt Thompson Managerial Revolution is now totally discredited morally ... except for Birt's prescience in bringing forth a digital institution ...

the travails of the BBC, pay, pay-offs, scandals &c are common across the public sector ... with outright fraud, incompetence and malfeasance a matter of routine occurrence ... so the present complaints are not unique no matter how unfortunate ... all our taxation is spent in questionable ways ....

is an independent BBC is necessary for the good of us all and the future well being of our society? iif yes, a license fee, much more robust independence from the likes of Schapps Alexande and Harman or Balls; if no then taxation or subscription [efffectively a form of state ownership v open market] imv only the licensing fee allows for a securely funded and truly independent BBC .... come to think of it not a bad model for health, education, energy .... nationalised corporations running utilities out of political control eh

[Dave2002]

At risk of straying int P&CA territory...

But they are raising £3.6bn through the licence fee, which is a tax, and, quite rightly, the public wants to have sight of how the money is spent.

I can see how the BBC spends its money - on programmes like Strictly and Pointless. I suppose in a democracy ....

I would also say that £145.50 is quite a lot to pay for everyone in the country who has a TV.

That amount of money could perhaps fund at least one more Hinkley Point or Wylfa nuclear power station.

Mr Shapps is right that transparency is key to the future of the BBC. So is its freedom from political pressure.

Re salaries for top people, in the BBC or elsewhere, I really don't see why they can't be made public. They are in other countries, and even published in the newspapers. This is the case in Sweden. I don't know if it applies over the whole of the USA, but there are certainly parts e.g California education system, where salaries within groups are known. Knowing the salaries of other people does have curious effects when bargaining, and probably tends to keep them down, but also fair.

Re political interference, we have/are seeing that discussion with Leveson. I think the BBC should not be influenced unduly by politicians, though how does one differentiate responsible reporting from the other sort?

[aeolium]

is an independent BBC is necessary for the good of us all and the future well being of our society? iif yes, a license fee, much more robust independence from the likes of Schapps Alexande and Harman or Balls; if no then taxation or subscription [efffectively a form of state ownership v open market] imv only the licensing fee allows for a securely funded and truly independent BBC .... come to think of it not a bad model for health, education, energy .... nationalised corporations running utilities out of political control eh

Then you would be a Robin Hood in reverse, taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, for the licence fee is a flat-rate tax in which the poorest pays as much as the richest. If you like the licence fee, then you must have liked the poll tax, for it is much the same. And you would have all public services financed in this way?

[Dave2002]

the travails of the BBC, pay, pay-offs, scandals &c are common across the public sector ... with outright fraud, incompetence and malfeasance a matter of routine occurrence ... so the present complaints are not unique no matter how unfortunate ... all our taxation is spent in questionable ways ....

Maybe, though I doubt that such "problems" are limited to the public sector. Additionally, there may be some truly independent firms, but very many private sector firms rely on contracts funded from the public purse.

I agree with much of the rest of your post.

[french frank]

Though Shapps is someone I hardly ever agree with, I think he's right in claiming the BBC is over-secretive. Why shouldn't figures be provided for all salaries over a certain level or explanations provided for dropping programmes or stations? Why does the BBC resort to the excuse of commercial confidentiality in refusing to disclose information sought under an FoI request? There is a question of trust here and the BBC ought to be as open as possible.

I'm currently battling with the Trust over the matter of budgets and the transparency thereof. I can't find anything which looks like even skeleton accounts for the Proms and there are no separate headline figures in the Annual Accounts. I am dimly aware that Radio 3 has to pay for what isn't covered by ticket sales. How much of the budget does that amount to?

The last letter from the Trust pointed out that it had reported in its review that R3 spent (2009/10) £7.9m on 'the BBC performing groups and Proms'. But the review doesn't say that: it says that R3 spent £7.9m on the performing groups. No mention of the Proms. It also said that that represented 20% of the R3 budget, but only 7% of broadcast output. I'm just finishing yet another letter to ask them to clarify which is correct.

I also asked for the criteria for deciding that R1, for example, was given a service budget increase of 35% while Radio 3, for the same period, had a rise of 8.6% (the answer had to be guessed: 'that's management, not us - we don't ask').

But when we asked for the publication of management's strategy plans for R3, under FOI, we were told they were exempt and the BBC would not be publishing them. BBC notions of transparency are weird - but we have a dilemma: we don't want to side with the BBC bashers in the Tory party and elsewhere.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Then you would be a Robin Hood in reverse, taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, for the licence fee is a flat-rate tax in which the poorest pays as much as the richest. If you like the licence fee, then you must have liked the poll tax, for it is much the same. And you would have all public services financed in this way?

only if you assume a flat fee, not necessarily so as the song has it; but that is also a reason for a low fee ... and if that were unprogressive i am sure that redress could be found in overall taxation ...

further thoughts ..... and in any case a fee is a fee [ie a price] not a tax; it is the criminality of non payment that makes it a tax as opposed to a civil liability for use of service without payment ... and as a price it has no moral need to be progressive or non regressive, merely a reasonable payment for value received [and actually indistinguishable form a subscription?] ...are you suggesting the cover price of the Guardian is regressive? or the Sun?

and no i do not follow the logic that i should have liked the poll tax, that was no price; it was part of a political struggle between a Tory Govt and Labour Local Authorities and a socially disastrous move by a regressive Prime Minister

to my mind the argument resolves more on the degree of voluntary or required payment; subscription is a voluntary fee; license a mandated fee .... the argument being that those who do not chose to pay will nevertheless benefit substantially from a society with a BBC in it and should therefore pay [with all people better informed, educated and enagaed with culture the society would have less dysfunction, ill health, crime and so on]... a mandated license fee addresses the free rider problem [as a certain Isaiah once remarked when it comes to values you cannot have your cake and eat it usually]

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Maybe, though I doubt that such "problems" are limited to the public sector. Additionally, there may be some truly independent firms, but very many private sector firms rely on contracts funded from the public purse.

I agree with much of the rest of your post.

agreed, in the defence industries, pharma and so on .... it would not be my view that the market sector is unblighted by corruption, malpractice etc .... imho we live in a gangster state and a gangster society where most people are manipulated or subjugated for the benefit of the few

[aeolium]

But when we asked for the publication of management's strategy plans for R3, under FOI, we were told they were exempt and the BBC would not be publishing them. BBC notions of transparency are weird - but we have a dilemma: we don't want to side with the BBC bashers in the Tory party and elsewhere.

Yes, that's a tiresome example of lack of transparency. But I don't think you should ever withhold criticism from an institution which in principle you support on the basis that people you despise are making the same criticism - and I think this holds true for any institution. If it is a genuine flaw then its continuance can only give ammunition to the institution's enemies. No institution deserves uncritical support - it is bad for it.

[Dave2002]

Then you would be a Robin Hood in reverse, taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, for the licence fee is a flat-rate tax in which the poorest pays as much as the richest. If you like the licence fee, then you must have liked the poll tax, for it is much the same. And you would have all public services financed in this way?

We went round the loop of considering whether the BBC should be funded out of taxation some while back, as I started one thread on that topic. As I understand it, the licence fee is not a tax (though you may feel it is), and there seemed to be consensus in previous debates that it did offer the possibility of political independence from government and other parties.

If it's rolled into taxation, then other considerations might come into play. It does seem that TV take up is substantial, so there may not be many people who are so poor that they can't watch it. If you could not afford food, clothing and heating, would you really need TV?

Perhaps.

[french frank]

But I don't think you should ever withhold criticism from an institution which in principle you support on the basis that people you despise are making the same criticism - and I think this holds true for any institution. If it is a genuine flaw then its continuance can only give ammunition to the institution's enemies. No institution deserves uncritical support - it is bad for it.

But hence our dilemma. We have always gone down the route of giving THEM the benefit of our criticism, to which they have been perpetually impervious. But with Charter Renewal coming up again we have another option: BLACKMAIL (Remember 'Vote No to AV or the baby dies!'?). Do as we say or ***** !!!

[Dave2002]

BLACKMAIL (Remember 'Vote No to AV or the baby dies!'?). Do as we say or ***** !!!

I don't quite get this. I stood on street corners trying to persuade people to Vote for AV, and at least 90% of people weren't interested, a few were very interested, and a few said things such as "b***** off", or "you're a waste of time" etc. Most people claimed to be too busy to bother.

In the end it appears that people got what they wanted!

Sadly, there isn't an argument against the outcome of that that I can see, as the result was very decisive.

[Ed - so as not to take the thread off-topic: It was how the advert from the No campaign was lampooned: All that money wasted on changing the voting system which could be spent on the NHS instead - cue pic of small, sick baby who will surely die if we have to spend it on this unnecessary change) . Enuff of voting reform - ff]