Despite the fact that hundreds of TV channels now exist, and the fact that subscriptions to channels can be easily managed these days, the government decides that the BBC will continue to have the power for another decade to extort money out of people who don’t even watch it, in order to make whatever programs they feel like making.
Tessa Jowell’s statement is here.
While she’s aware that digital TV is going to shake up TV, she shows no awareness that the internet will probably revolutionize broadcasting within a few years, and certainly before 2016.
She also says:
Alongside the NHS, the BBC is one of the two great institutions of British national life.
Not that bad, surely? It doesn’t kill people, after all (well, not directly).
Perhaps surprisingly, the licence fee retains a high degree of public support.
If it has such a high degree of public support, then why is there the need to force people to fund it? If it’s so popular, people will pay for it out of their own pockets. Unless, that is, it turns out that it isn’t really so popular after all.
And although not perfect, we believe it remains the fairest way to fund the BBC.
But why wouldn’t this sort of reasoning (or lack of it) apply to other services? Reading newspapers has a high degree of public support – so would it be ‘fair’ that a state-backed license fee be used to fund The Guardian? Drinking milk is popular, so would it be fair that a state-enforced license fee be used to fund a milk company?
P.S. As for the story about the scrapping of the governers, as Kelvin McKenzie says, it’s merely putting another bunch of “establishment dimwits” in charge. Michael Grade has dismissed McKenzie’s comments with “I’m not sure that Kelvin speaks for the nation. He speaks for Kelvin”. But who says Grade speaks for the nation? Who voted for him? Who would win a vote between Grade and McKenzie? At least I don’t have to watch or listen to anything McKenzie puts out, whereas I am forced (as a TV owner) by law and the subsequent threat of jail to pay over £100 a year towards whatever Grade puts out (even if I don’t watch it).
(Wonder if BBC News will start getting worse now that this decision is over and done with. After all, this might be the last ever charter.)
P.P.S. And check out this vague blather:
A BBC that promotes citizenship and builds our civil society.
A BBC that promotes education and learning.
A BBC dedicated to creativity and cultural excellence
A BBC that celebrates our nations, regions and communities.
A BBC that brings the world to the UK and the UK to the world.
A BBC which is strong, independent and securely at the heart of British broadcasting for ten more years.
“If it has such a high degree of public support, then why is there the need to force people to fund it?”
You can use that argument about almost anything. There’s a high degree of public support for the police, but people wouldn’t necessarily want it to be left to choice to pay for it.
Perhaps people support the BBC *because* they like the benefits of the funding mechanism – freedom from market forces etc etc.
“freedom from market forces etc etc”
And for freedom from other viewpoints, too!
>You can use that argument about almost anything.
Well, yes. And that’s why most things are best left to the market. And how come you chose the police as your example? There are a few areas which probably do need to be run by the State, such as the judiciary and the police and the army. But a television station hardly fits into the same category, especially these days.
>Perhaps people support the BBC *because* they like the benefits of the funding mechanism – freedom from market forces.
It’s not very clear what this means. Do you mean these people are happy because they get to watch shows that they couldn’t watch in a totally free market system? Well, if these shows have any popularity then why wouldn’t they be made by a privatized BBC?
Or are you talking about shows that are so unpopular that no private version of the BBC or any other station could ever justify the cost of making them? But that means currently a lot of money is being taken from other people to pay for
Or are you talking about shows that are so unpopular that no private version of the BBC or any other station could ever justify the cost of making them? But that means currently a lot of money is being taken from other people to pay for the pleasures of a very small amount of people (such as myself enjoying some of the shows on BBC3 and 4), people who are not going to be amongst the disadvantaged, and who seem to cope fine with newspapers and books not being subsidized by the state.
Of course, if such minority interest shows really are that important to the minority who watch them, they could always pay more to watch them – like taking out a subscription to Artsworld to see “classy” TV.
But here’s where we find that that minority, while happy to watch these shows when they’re cheap – by which I mean cheap for *those* people, because everyone else is forced to help pay for them – aren’t really interested in these shows enough to warrant them paying that bit extra.
It’s like the case with Artsworld – I’d quite like to watch some of its shows, but I don’t really want to watch them that much that I think it’s worth paying 70-odd quid a year.
The same would happen with BBC3 and 4. I like some of their shows, but I don’t think they’re that good that I’d bother paying much extra for them. But I’ll watch them sometimes, seeing as they’re made cheap for me because evreryone else was forced to help create them.
But why should everyone else be forced to help pay for them when I don’t myself value them enough to pay a few extra quid a month for them? We’re not talking about road-funding or emergency services here.
The more I think about it the more I realise that this pretence of change that has been announced will, by its own complacency, pave the way for quicker and greater change. More and more people are questioning the unreal world constructed from the lies and pretence that the BBC calls its “impartiality”. Unless the BBC starts to reflect the real world it is soon going to rumble into a brick wall of discontented licence payers, and those “TEN MORE YEARS” will sound to more and more ears like a prison sentence. I reckon that within 2 years or less they will find their licence fee under serious attack.
I rather go to jail than contribute money to the enemy corrupting the United Kingdom.
“You can use that argument about almost anything. There’s a high degree of public support for the police, but people wouldn’t necessarily want it to be left to choice to pay for it.”
That is a spurious argument, the BBC is not the police. The police, or a functioning legal system, is essential for the functioning of society, Eastenders is not.
I would actually go further and say that the BBC is damaging to the country, through its politically correct niaevety.
“As for the story about the scrapping of the governers, as Kelvin McKenzie says, it’s merely putting another bunch of “establishment dimwits” in charge”
He is clearly showing the government to much credit. Although the Board is being replaced by a “Trust” in fact it isn’t legally a trust which means it is a board & its boss will be the current boss so it is really the same bunch of establishment dimwits, who were smart enough to fire Gilligan for telling the truth, with a paint job.
The only real difference is that they are now ordered not to compete in the popularity stakes – which, with the same amount of money, will leave considerable room for comfort & the sort of expensive unpopular things the Beeb like to do anyway. How this squares with the non-trust’s primary duty to the public is not obvious.
The only way to stop this nonsense (the BBC licence fee) is for an organised campaign of non-payment to be organised, with many many people going through the court. A few thousand would bring about a crisis for the BBC.
“organised campaign of non-payment to be organised”
Oops! Well, it’s organised!
Rob Read
“I rather go to jail than contribute money to the enemy corrupting the United Kingdom.”
You may well be sharing a cell with me, comrade. The BBC has given up writing to me. I went through the ‘helpful reminder’ stage, onto the ‘tut tut naughty naughty’ stage, through to the ‘here come the detector vans’ stage, all finished off with the ‘we’ll boil your bollocks if you don’t stump up’ stage. After that a year of nothing. I’m beginning to feel quite lonely.
At least I don’t have to watch or listen to anything McKenzie puts out…
And you don’t have to watch or listen to the BBC.
…whereas I am forced (as a TV owner) by law and the subsequent threat of jail to pay over £100 a year towards whatever Grade puts out (even if I don’t watch it).
Firstly, Grade doesn’t put anything out; he is the Chairman of Governers (currently), not the Director General.
Secondly, you and I do pay money to talkSPORT etc. through advertising. I don’t listen to talkSPORT, but I cannot stop my local supermarket from spending some of their money there in advertising.
Finally, I agree the threat of gaol for not paying the licence fee is excessive (although as Pete says, this is rarely enforced); it should at least be a civil offence, and should certainly be amended in the light of the advances in digital technology.
Quinn “Secondly, you and I do pay money to talkSPORT etc. through advertising. I don’t listen to talkSPORT, but I cannot stop my local supermarket from spending some of their money there in advertising.”
Does it cost you? A company does not spend on advertising to reduce its profits or to increase the cost of its goods to an uncompetitive level. Does advertising act to increase sales with the higher volume increasing profit on lower margins?
Advertising *can* act to increase costs with no substantial impact on demand (for example, if the market is largely saturated and advertising is dedicated predominantly towards switching brands).
The textbook example is the cigarette industry in the developed world, where advertising bans have improved companies’ profit margins (well, have offset the impact of taxation on profit margins) without any immediately visible negative impact on consumption rates.
In such cases, producers and consumers alike would be financially better off were there no outlets for advertising.
Dan, you make a fair point but why, say, Asda spends its money on advertising is not really relevant to what I was trying to say. Of course companies advertise with the intention of increasing sales and profits, although it may not work out that way. Whether I am personally out of pocket because Asda advertise with talkSPORT is probably impossible to work out; but their money has to come from somewhere in the economy. They get their income from advertiser, who get it from consumers, who get it from employers, and so on. Somehow, we pay as we are part of the economy. It doesn’t bother me, but to use a tired cliche, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
A few comments regarding the discussion of public funding (ie taxation) versus advertising.
The BBC is in effect a massive monopoly which TV viewers are forced to fund regardless of whether they use its products. Failure to pay the licence fee can result in a criminal conviction and a prison sentence. Even if you have no TV equipment they hound you. If that is not bad enough its massive resources and size (Sarah Montague referred today on Today to a licence fee income (now or prospective?) of £2.8 billion. It’s already around £2.5 billion per the latest accounts. The Beeb’s resourses are so large that there is no (longer) a level playing field for commercial competitors. The BBC has in effect a massive subsidy which squeezes out all but the hardiest competion. This has negative effects.
I no longer wish to listen to Radio 4 because I object to what I consider its serious lack of objectivity on many issues ( I am sure we can all cite examples) and its obsession with a PC view
“Does advertising act to increase sales with the higher volume increasing profit on lower margins?”
Not necessarily, no. In mature markets especially, advertising / marketing / sales budgets can essentially amount to an arms race. Secondly, higher spend does not automatically equate to higher sales, or advertising would be a much simpler business.
The point about advertising is that its cost to you, the consumer, is not transparent. If all companies have to market intensively to survive, you don’t realistically get the choice to opt out of paying, either. E.g. cars -it is impossible to buy a new car without paying a significant advertising “tax”.
Thank you, to John B and Anonymous, for supporting my initial point far more successfully than I was able to manage.
How many non-shopers at asda has asda jailed?
The question about the TV-tax is moral not economic.
The answer is that the method by which the BBC is funded is immoral.
Pete_London it’s better to be a running man than Killian. We’ll be back!
“The point about advertising is that its cost to you, the consumer, is not transparent.”
Neither are ‘shrinkage’, labour costs, corporation tax… So what? Stop capitalism?
The EU would do well to hand out its own latest Report and Accounts with each referendum ballot — I hear they haven’t balanced their books in years!
Susan
I think we’re up to 10 years and counting now. Don’t worry though, the EU is on the case; anyone who let’s the cat out of the bag in Brussels can expect the sack and an investigation.
“A BBC that promotes citizenship and builds our civil society.
A BBC that promotes education and learning.
A BBC dedicated to creativity and cultural excellence”
Where?
When they spend more then i earn in a year to get an interview with a peice of scum who has claimed benifits all his life and when thet income wasn’t enough to support him, turned to robbing – just because he got shot by some old bloke he terrorised – an old bloke who got sent to prision for it?
pfft….
You don’t earn £4,500 in a year??????
Some people outside the City dont get paid much,Cockney.