The BBC Licence Fee

alexhilton Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 07:16:08 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Just a thought. From the 2005/6 annual report of the BBC, I note the licence fee brings in £3.1bn from 25 million people.

It costs £153.4m to collect.

What would be the implications of abolishing the licence fee, funding the BBC from a direct government grant and saving the £153.4 million?






tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
The BBC Licence Fee | 31 comments (31 topical)

Re: The BBC License Fee (#1)

by AndrewHenderson on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:31:50 PM GMT

At the moment it is probably wiser to retain the license fee, government funding would risk the "independence" of the BBC.

Last year there was talk of Radio 1 and 2 being sold this could raise $500 millions. We could of course impose a special license fee upon celebrities such as a Mr. J. Ross that he and those like him could repay their fat fees to the BBC.

We could as other countries do slap on a fee for every tv set and radio sold, or perhaps we could have an annual flag day.


Re: The BBC License Fee (#2)

by bishophill on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:49:54 PM GMT

Andrew H

I do love the way you put the quotes round "independence". I couldn't agree more. 

But why not fund the BBC from a subscription? It's fairer.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC License Fee (#3)

by southside on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 09:40:55 PM GMT

In my view the BBC wastes a great deal of money. Couple of examples that get my blood boiling:

1. BBC East Midlands had a reporter in Paris to cover the Rugby World Cup final for local tv under the pretence that there were 5 or so players from Leicester Tigers in the team

2. BBC East Midlands had a reporter in Portugal for months to report on the McCann story

3. Radio 1's Six Weeks of Summer saw a host of highly paid DJs (and a load of support staff I am sure) travel to Ibiza, Tenerife etc for a weekend of fun. I am sure our license fee paid for all of it, including some trips for some competition winners. 

4. A lot of Radio and TV phone-in programmes have freephone numbers for people to ring in and give their views. If someone wants to phone in, let them pay!

5. First edition of Castaway made on an island in Scotland, second edition on an island in New Zealand. What justifies that?

That's all before we even get to the high salaries the BBC pays some of its staff. If ITV wants to pay Jonathan Ross or Chris Moyles more that £50k a year, let them go there.

I am sure if someone did a proper review of BBC expenditure you could save hundreds of millions of pounds all over the place


Re: The BBC License Fee (#4)

by mattwardman on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:18:49 PM GMT

I think you make a good point, Alex.


And I think there is very substantial room for savings.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC License Fee (#5)

by Parishpumpspin on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:52:02 PM GMT

Its an anacranism and should go, TBH as I don't believe that their public service ethos still exists I see no reason for a state owned TV/radio/media company.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC License Fee (#6)

by RedRooster on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:57:58 PM GMT

What government would ever want to take on the political headache of justifying the cost of the BBC?


Re: The BBC License Fee (#7)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 11:24:23 PM GMT

The BBC provides an excellent public service and is easily worth the License Fee money. The fact that it has no adverts is worth paying the money alone. It's news coverage is excellent and I'd rate the BBC website as one of the best in the world.

Imagine if the BBC didn't exist - all we'd have is the garbage on ITV churning out Tory propaganda 24/7.

Personally, I'd be quite happy with Alex's suggestion to have the money come from a government grant rather than collected through license fee money, but I simply can't see any change happening any time soon.


Re: The BBC License Fee (#8)

by southside on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:48 AM GMT

NorthernMonkey, I agree with you with regards to news coverage, the website and a lot of the factual programming (love Palin's New Europe at the moment).

I get annoyed when they are cutting back in these areas - but waste loads of money elsewhere as per my comment above.

Cutting out this waste - which smacks of people going on jollies on license fee money - would generate a lot of room for the worthwile programming above.

Another idea - why doesn't the BBC sell programmes to commercial broadcasters when they can get a good price for them?

Develop a new concept, give new people and innovation a chance, and when it catches on commercially sell it off to the highest bidder. For example, I am sure a commercial broadcaster would be interested in buying Eastenders from the BBC.






[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC License Fee (#9)

by AndrewHenderson on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:08:34 AM GMT

BBC news coverage not that excellent, in some ways it mimics other tv news services. Its several Middle East correspondents simply mouth Palestinian propaganda. It's not worth the £135+ annual fee, it produces plenty of garbage, "come dancing" being one example. BBC TV generally as other TV services competes for the lowest common denominator, it's London centered.

Perhaps it would be better just to sell it off to the highest bidder. 


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC License Fee (#10)

by SocialistAC on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:36:11 PM GMT

Rupert Murdoch, inevitably.  Some future the Labour Party will have then...


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC License Fee (#12)

by champagnesocialist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:51:27 PM GMT

which would be totally wrong - the BBC sets the standard for the other media in Britain to aspire to and has a key role in training journalists, technicians etc who can use their skills in the BBC and in other private media companies.

 

Remember also that the BBC is not just television - it is local and national radio, websites, books etc etc etc - most of which which would not be provided if the BBC did not, or if they are would not be of such a high quality.

 

And a subsidiary point - its licence (noun)  not license (verb) we are talking about. You have a television licence which licenses you to watch the television. 


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC License Fee (#13)

by alexhilton on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:33:02 PM GMT

indeed - oops


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC License Fee (#11)

by SocialistAC on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:43:37 PM GMT

"Imagine if the BBC didn't exist - all we'd have is the garbage on ITV churning out Tory propaganda 24/7." And that's how it'd literally be! Britain has become too American-like; the privatisation of the BBC would inevitably lead to Fox News -style right-wing propaganda networks popping up everywhere. (Think of our newspapers, we've only ever had one solidly pro-Labour paper, the Mirror.) OFCOM's already pretty damn toothless already and rolls over for corporate interests virtually every time, don't think it'd be any different if the public broadcasting sector was set for "liberalisation".


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#14)

by bishophill on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:02:24 PM GMT

Could the commenters who have claimed that ITV churns out Tory progaganda please point me to some examples. I've never heard this claim before.


Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#16)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:58:56 PM GMT

Just listen to Tom Bradby for five minutes swooning over Cameron, then you'll understand.

Given you're a Conservative can you provide evidence on how the BBC is pro-Labour as you lot seem to monotonously bang on about? Any random episode of Question Time should be enough to counter-act that argument.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#18)

by alexswanson on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:48:32 AM GMT

"can you provide evidence on how the BBC is pro-Labour"

 

Sure.

The labour Party banned handguns in 1997 on the basis that this would "take [them] off the streets" and prevent another Dunblane. These claims, and all subsequent similar claims, were and are lies. To my knowledge - and I think I'd hear about it - he BBC has never once challenged the government on this policy.

 

Another one?

The BBC has over the years broadcast many programmes - in fact, whole series - on how nasty the Nazis were. To my knowledge, it has never once  broadcast a programme on the crimes of communism, even though that doctrine has caused far more suffering and death around the world.

 

 I could keep going.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#19)

by alexswanson on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:03:46 AM GMT

 And in fact I will.

 The early release of Northern Irish terorists was carried out at the behest of Labour-supported Nationalists against the opposition of the Unionists, who constitute let's remember the majority population there. It is also, incidentally, against international law - it's contrary to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which explicitly forbids govt intererference in the verdicts of courts. Nevertheless BBC attitudes towards this policy has always been uncritically supportive.

For almost daily updates on the BBC's general left-wing bias, you could do worse than regularly visit: 

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#30)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:45:55 PM GMT

I do of course remember catchy BBC slogans like 'Free the Nationalists!Free the Nationalists'


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#20)

by southside on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:35:25 AM GMT

Can I please try to avoid the spoiling of a good discussion on the BBC by suggesting it is not worth replying to this rubbish?


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#22)

by alexswanson on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:02:45 PM GMT

What rubbish?

 If you mean me - evidence of bias was asked for, duly presented. If you want to close your eyes to it, there's nothing I can do about that, but don't pretend it doesn't ecist.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#23)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:32:03 PM GMT

I'm assuming (and hoping for your sake) that you're not being serious here, so I agree with southside and won't even bother trying to reply to those.

I doubt the director-general will lose much sleep over those 'criticisms'!


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#27)

by bishophill on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:37:43 PM GMT

Alex

Can you remember the last time someone was given airtime to speak out in favour of capital or corporal punishment? There was a story a while back of a BBC bigwig who refused to answer the question of whether he would ever allow this to happen.

Speaks volumes. 


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#29)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:43:42 PM GMT

The BBC news is there to provide facts and news, not to give opinions. By this logic I could say that because Panorama has not done something on the Burmese regime, the Beeb are ardent supporters of Than Shwe. Because they didn't fight with the government tooth and nail about ID Cards, they are in favour of instituting an Orwellian state.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#26)

by bishophill on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:35:26 PM GMT

NorthernMonkey

Is it just Tom Bradby or are there others?

I'm libertarian rather than Conservative. I'm pro-choice, agnostic on immigration, don't believe in subsidising marriage, don't give a monkeys about someone's sexuality etc etc.

When the BBC is accused of bias, its presenters often reply by saying "But it's not a party-political bias". This is quite true. The BBC is not pro-Labour as such. It broadly welcomes any big-state, leftish views and seeks to disparage any small-state rightish views. Pretty much all points of view are attacked from the left - "Why are these services under-funded Minister" "Why aren't you doing more". It's never "Why don't you stop trying and failing to provide this service and leave it up to the free market".

Now I'm sure you don't agree with these views, but I don't doubt that you are enough of a liberal to believe that they should be given a regular airing on the BBC.  


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#28)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:49:23 PM GMT

All viewpoints should be given a fair say.


The BBC as well as Channel 4 occasionally gives a liberal bias (but certainly not to the extent that Conservatives complain about), particularly on Iraq I noticed.


If we get rid of the BBC and Channel 4 (both licence fee funded - Channel 4 only partially) then practically all media in this country will come from a right-wing view point whether it be TV (ITV News, Sky News), newspapers (only the Mirror and Guardian are Labour supporters naturally) and even the blogosphere is dominated by Tories.


Is this how a democracy ought to be, where every element of the media pumps out Tory propaganda? That's like no democracy I'm familiar with.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#15)

by themanwithaplan on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:40:12 PM GMT

I believe that we need a fully independent (without quotes) BBC.
 
The figures in the OP suggest that the actual cost per licence payer should be around £120, or £10 a month. It costs more than that because some refuse to pay!
 
Yes, they tend to (appear) to duplicate reporters in some areas, and I wish they didn't concentrate so heavily on some sports (Golf, a waste of a good walk!).
 
The BBC has produced some great TV in the past and should be encouraged to continue to do so.
 


Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#17)

by AndrewHenderson on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:55:42 AM GMT

The BBC is not the proud institution it once was, as  I wrote earlier it produces programmes to the lowest common denominator, it's all about ratings. Both Paxman and Humphrys have attacked current thinking especially over the budget cuts falling unfairly on news and current affairs. It would be far better to slim the organisation down, cut out the pop music channels and local radio; reduce tv channels, cut waste. We also need to ween the BBC off the licence fee and source funds from alternative income. If you are not going to agree to sell the company off then at least you must see the need for a smaller BBC.


Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#24)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:35:29 PM GMT

Not really. You might not listen to Radio 1 or local BBC radio, bit plenty of people do and get a good service from them.

However, I would support getting rid of BBC Three and Four as hardly anyone bothers watching them and they offer nothing new. I'd rather the Beeb scrapped those and spent more money on high-quality programmes rather than showing more repeats.


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#25)

by AndrewHenderson on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:22:07 PM GMT

There are proposals to sell off Radio 1 & 2 on the table, £500 million being a possible sale figure so you might still be able to "enjoy" the services offered.

BBC TV 3 & 4 were meant to be the digital vanguard services, BBC 4 started very well, I can remember watching a Shakespeare interactive production (headed by Mark Rylands) from the Globe which was beautifully done. By and large BBC 4 is now just another repeat channel as you say and BBC 3 was meant to interest youthful  audiences.

I think some people here are too ready to give the "I love the BBC" line of thought that their thinking is somewhat blinkered and they are not really examining the subject before them.

I would suggest some would be better informed if they look up what Humphrys, Paxman  and others have to say.

 

 

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#21)

by jkitleft on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:23:49 PM GMT

I think it's rediculous that they are cutting down on some of their finer programming, which will probably be replaced with 'Help! My obese son with man boobs got some girl pregnant, who's addicted to crack cocaine and has already had three children'


Re: The BBC Licence Fee (#31)

by SunilPrasannan on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 11:26:19 AM GMT

Although I have no problem paying up, suppose, just suppose, it could be proven that a TV owner doesn't watch BBC products - could he/she claim a full refund? Should they be entitled to one?
You only pay SKY or Setanta if you want their products, right?


The BBC Licence Fee | 31 comments (31 topical)