Chris Warburton stands in for Victoria Derbyshire this week.
He was discussing this (10:41):
BBC to argue for licence fee to be linked to inflation
The Sunday Times reported that the BBC had a preference for a subscription model of funding.
The BBC have leapt on that suggestion and denied it vigorously….
“The report recommends that the BBC pursue an inflationary licence fee increase with greater commercial revenue. No subscription model is recommended.”
Unfortunately one of those involved in the funding review, David Elstein, didn’t ‘rule out’ a subscription model..indeed he seemed pretty enthusiastic about it saying the BBC would ‘do pretty well out of it’..…and if avoiding the license fee is de-criminalised then the subscription model is probably the best method…not to use it would be ‘slow suicide’….though he suggests the proposal to decriminalise is merely a negotiating tactic by the government…despite many MPs actually urging it.
However he was very enthusiastic about the subscription model.
Elstein is ‘A long-time critic of the licence fee who believes the BBC should be funded by subscription’ and he made some interesting comments (in Jan 2014) about the license fee in light of the BBC’s recent claim that de-criminalising the license fee might lead to a drop in funding…
“Just a 1% increase in evasion would lead to the loss of around £35m, the equivalent of around 10 BBC local radio stations.”
Elstein points out that [discussing the BBC’s reporting, or non-reporting, of immigration]:
“It’s not a happy place to be when you are one of the very few public organisations directly benefiting from the unlimited expansion of the population.
“It’s not [the BBC’s] decision, there’s nothing they can do about it. It is a side product of a certain social phenomenon [and] the BBC might benefit.”
Elstein said the growth in single person households over the last two decades had a similar impact on BBC funding, leading to a “50% rise in the number of households paying the licence fee”.
Wonder how many local radio stations were funded by that increase!
Janet Daley in the Telegraph isn’t impressed by the BBC’s ‘ideal’ license fee + inflation:
The BBC wants even more money
Bizarrely, the BBC itself has chosen this moment to suggest that its licence fee should not simply be protected in future but that it should be unfrozen and (wait for it) linked to inflation. And in addition to requesting these automatic rises in the licence fee – which would mean that every increase in the cost of living would push up the cost of television-viewing – they also plan to introduce paid-for services to compete with iTunes and netflix. What planet, as they say, are these people on?
Here is a suggestion for what it might do. Instead of demanding a licence fee from every owner of a computer or smart phone (which it is, believe it or not, considering), it should make the consumption of BBC content on any device dependent on having a licence. It should be simple enough to introduce: in order to log on to the BBC website, or to access iPlayer, you would need to supply your licence number – just as you have to do now with most subscription-only web services. That way, anyone who wanted to use any BBC service on any platform would have to pay the fee. But you would have a choice. And it is only that – giving the consumer a real choice – that will bring BBC funding into the twenty-first century.
Sounds simple and effective.
Another interesting interview (11:27) was with Alistair Morgan, brother of Daniel Morgan, a private detective investigating police corruption, murdered in 1987….possibly, and significantly you might think, just as he was about to expose that corruption. Alistair Morgan suggests that if the botched investigation into his brother’s murder had been properly examined the subsequent investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder would not have also been ‘botched’ if lessons had been learned.
As Daniel Morgan was white that kind of suggests that botched police investigations are not solely, if at all, related to ‘race’ of the victim…and it should be noted that Morgan was murdered in 1987, the government, despite a long campaign by the family, only initiated an inquiry concerning the police investigation in 2013…compare that to the Lawrence case…Stephen Lawrence murdered in 1993, a review was announced only 4 years later in 1997….and Lawrence’s mother is now a ‘Baroness’ on the strength of her campaigning….though other matters may have influenced that.
If the BBC were to offer their full back catalogue to license payers this would be a make the license fee a tiny bit more palatable, to me at least. It would be great to go onto an iTunes type of site and watch old Dad’s Army’s & Allo Allo or listen to the old radio comedies like the Navy Lark any time you like, and why not? Since we’ve all paid for it already, why should I have to pay to get the DvD box set or the like.
“demanding a licence fee from every owner of a computer or smartphone”
Hmmmm … I wouldn’t mind seeing that come to pass, straws and camels’ backs spring to mind. Can you imagine the yoof of today being told they must pay a licence or lose that thing stuck to their ear? Or the households with numerous smartphones need numerous licences?
Should make the poll tax riots look like a stroll in the park.
“Should make the poll tax riots look like a stroll in the park”
—
Indeed, and market rate talents such as Mr. Purnell beavering away on such notions can surely not be unaware of such things.
A lot of smoke and mirrors swirling around and dazzling currently, I suspect with the aim of polarising extremes such that, by way of ‘balance’, once the dust settles, all appears calmly back the way it was.
Tone makes a punt for inflation-tied increases, but graciously eventually accepts the current compelled tithe remains at its present vast level.
Patten is shuffled away on a vast pay off, and his successor simply inherits his Nelsonian telescope.
The licence fee does not get tagged to the youth’s EE iPhone contracts, but is quietly lost in general taxation.
And nothing changes.
Mark Byford’s pension stays index linked.
Helen Boaden still has a squad of lawyers casting FoI exemption briefs like rose petals at her feet.
Tony Hall remains as uncurious and forgetful as all his predecessors.
Alan Yentob still gets two salaries to do lord knows what all around the world.
Newsnight, Jeremy Bowen, Lyse, Jon, Tulip, etc, all continue to blossom and analyse instead of report, and remain immune if what they pass on turns out to be in error.
And whatever the Trust gets renamed as, they ensure still that the BBC is never, ever, actually held to account.
If it was introduced by a left wing government then there would be no issue. There are only riots when the fascist left believe they can have a go at government which does not share their intolerant hate filled views.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race
“Racial murders: nearly half the victims are white
Home Office release official figures as police claim that political correctness is stifling the debate”
So a minority (especially in 2006) of maybe 10 – 20% commit just as many murders as the indigenous populace of 80 – 90% meaning that the propensity of ethnics to racism and violence and murder is far far greater than in white people, yet there are no demonstration, except those howled down by the fascists, and as the Guardian tells, all debate is ‘verboten’.
“A spokeswoman for the CRE said the Home Office figures raised some interesting issues but she did not want to comment further until the data could be properly analysed.”
Did she ever get around to it?
Only one of these, I should think.
The BBC World Service runs commercial advertisements, at least on television. How else would I know that Emirates Airways serves great coffee – at least to its business class passengers?
Having a guaranteed income of £4 billion cannot be healthy for that organisation of more importantly it’s customers. The organisation becomes lazy and arrogant and self serving, and it’s customers receive a poor service, this is compounded when the customer has to pay a charge regardless of their consumption under pain of a criminal record and a possible prison sentence.
It is now 2014, technology has come on, inscription works, the consumer is constantly told they are king, so lets stop having the tail wag the dog.
David Elstein – always a strong and clear advocate for paying for the BBC by subscription – states that the BBC has a vested interest in large-scale immigration because it increases its revenue base. There are 50% more households now than 20 years ago – largely because of immigration.
But in charges Steve Hewlett of the Indy – and presenter of the BBC’s Media Show on Radio 4 – to say this idea is absurd.
It is a new point in the debate – but how can it be absurd ? It seems to be a very obvious and valid point. And Hewlett’s liberal bias is shining through.
…from the Guardian mentioned in Alan’s piece above.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/14/bbc-immigration-bskyb-channel-5-nick-robinson
‘in charges Steve Hewlett of the Indy’
Just saying something is, or is not, what they claim, is a common meme from too many with nothing but bluster and bias to bring to a debate. Because they think or believe it is fine, but resting on such statements alone is getting tiresome if meant to persuade.
Given the scope, complexity and importance of all this, it is a developing concern just how consistently narrow those we get to hear from are in debate.
I refer back to the ‘Future of the BBC’ inquiry.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/5368
Steve Hewlett, Guardian columnist and presenter, BBC Radio 4 “The Media Show”
“but just so that you know. I work at the BBC”
Claire Enders, owner and founder of Enders Analysis Ltd
“My evidence is focused on the delivery of a very wide range of products that the BBC delivers extraordinarily well”
David Elstein, Chairman, openDemocracy.net and the Broadcasting Policy Group Watch the meeting
“I am a great admirer and strong supporter of the BBC”
Though Mr. Elstein made some good points on commercial and media realities, it was pretty clear that the panel and committee were not there to discuss how well the BBC does what it does with the money it gets uniquely handed with near zero accountability, more how to rejig things so folk won’t notice or get any chance to object when it gets even more.
This exchange is telling:
Chair: Let us get back to the mainstream debate.
Q10 Angie Bray: We are talking about whether or not there are subjects that the BBC might shy away from, for whatever reason. I wonder whether I could get a comment from you on the other issue, which I think the BBC has had a very set view on in recent years, which is climate change. We have all now read about the semi-secret gathering a few years ago, which Roger Harrabin was responsible for, when the BBC decided that there was a set science now, that there was no room for any further denial that there might be manmade climate change and that they agreed that this was going to influence the way they covered the issues. Does that—
Chair: Can we please do this briefly, since we are straying an awful long way from the subject, the future of the BBC?
Angie Bray: But that is another issue, which I think needs to be addressed in terms of how they—
Chair: Okay.
Angie Bray: This may be because there is a mindset there, which kicks—
Steve Hewlett: In the case of climate change, I am not sure that there is. Just a couple of points on this. I have not read in detail the BBC’s reasons for opposing the freedom of information request, which has ultimately exposed the existence of this briefing. I am guessing—and if you know better, please do not let me put my foot in it—they would say, “This is an editorial matter and therefore, quite properly and quite rightly, outside the scope of FOI”. Is it wrong for BBC journalists and editorial executives to acquaint themselves, as fully as they can, with views from all sides of the argument about these things, and possibly do that in private and in circumstances that are not widely reported? My own personal view is I would rather they were better informed than less informed, and so probably, yes.
I am not sure how strong the case is to say that the BBC is overwhelmingly one way or the other on climate change. I think it is a difficult issue because the balance of scientific argument and evidence must be taken account of. Balance can never simply mean on one hand or the other; otherwise we would still be arguing about the world being flat. It has to take some account of where the debate has gone and what the balance of opinion is. I am not sure that I see the fact that this meeting took place and that executives went to it and discussed it, as evidence of a broader conspiracy to report in a particular way.
Angie Bray: I think you just need to look at the list of the people that were there.
Chair: Let us get back to the future of the BBC.
Angie Bray does give a valiant stab at asking what the heck the BBC is up to, but Steve Hewlett weighs in, uniformed and unsure but full of BBC belief, to say he doesn’t know much about it (I call BS) but the BBC gets it just about right. Ms. Bray tries to come back with FACTS on just how not right they try and rig things, and the Chair pulls the plug to get back to just how much money can be steered the BBC’s way from new taxes.
Howdy this cherished one! I must declare that this information is amazing, wonderful created including around important infos. I have to appearance added threads in this way .
Que !
Commercial? Michel Roux Jr doesn’t think so: “….frustrating process of trying to negotiate with the corporation and said he wondered if the BBC understood ”the realities of today’s commercial world”.”
Michel Roux Jr says BBC ‘frustrating’ as he leaves Masterchef
I’d have to say that many in the BBC can understand aspects of ”the realities of today’s commercial world” pretty well when they choose to.
It was the BBC who concocted the notion of ‘market rate talent’ to excuse lazy executives writing blank cheques to their on screen mates, ignoring totally the vast value that having their mugs on screen would add to their earning potential elsewhere, along with sweet deals when the ratings didn’t work out or some nice tax dodges to go.
They also seem to have the power of that pervasive presence worked out commercially when it comes to flogging each other’s wares.
Only recently in these pages someone posted a twitter exchange in full public view setting up an intra-BBC luvvie mutual back-pat to drive up a book’s appeal.
The only aspect of commercial reality that they don’t seem to grasp is service delivery-based competition. Because they don’t ever need to.
BBC abusing its position to put forward a one-sided case for the retention of criminal sanctions for non-payment of the TV licence. Note the role of ex-Labour Minister James Purnell. No attempt to put forward an alternative view.
This is nothing short of political corruption.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26542352