BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen

[Stuart]

As the licence fee stands then yes of course you have to be doing a specific thing to pay it. But my point was that, in the future, this might not be so. If it was funded from a levy on general taxation then it would be just like all the other public services that we don’t use personally.

Public Services are those provided to everyone by the State, regardless of contribution, or ability to pay.  Welfare, defence, policing, health and education etc are core services for a society, so they are funded from general taxation. Nobody has ever suffered from a lack of media!

PSBs simply have a remit to provide some elements to the public in order to have a licence to broadcast, whether that's the BBC or the commercially funded organisations.

You'd struggle to claim that Strictly was an 'essential public service' that required funding from general taxation.

[natashajacobs]

As the licence fee stands then yes of course you have to be doing a specific thing to pay it. But my point was that, in the future, this might not be so. If it was funded from a levy on general taxation then it would be just like all the other public services that we don’t use personally.

Public Services are those provided to everyone by the State, regardless of contribution, or ability to pay.  Welfare, defence, policing, health and education etc are core services for a society, so they are funded from general taxation. Nobody has ever suffered from a lack of media!

PSBs simply have a remit to provide some elements to the public in order to have a licence to broadcast, whether that's the BBC or the commercially funded organisations.

You'd struggle to claim that Strictly was an 'essential public service' that required funding from general taxation.

I’d argue the core parts (news especially) are an important part of a functioning democracy. Look at Russia. I agree Strictly is not, but you’re overlooking the rest of my point.

[Stuart]

I’d argue the core parts (news especially) are an important part of a functioning democracy. Look at Russia. I agree Strictly is not, but you’re overlooking the rest of my point.

But that information is freely available elsewhere, and the BBC produces far more than just news.

You're suggesting a directly state funded BBC, controlled by the state, so that's drifting into the very thing you claim you wish to avoid.

[natashajacobs]

I’d argue the core parts (news especially) are an important part of a functioning democracy. Look at Russia. I agree Strictly is not, but you’re overlooking the rest of my point.

But that information is freely available elsewhere, and the BBC produces far more than just news.

You're suggesting a directly state funded BBC, controlled by the state, so that's drifting into the very thing you claim you wish to avoid.

Where did I suggest I want it controlled by the state?! Quite the opposite!! Ha

[Stuart]

Where did I suggest I want it controlled by the state?! Quite the opposite!!

You're rather naive to suggest that a broadcaster funded by general taxation would be anything other than 'controlled by the state'.

The BBC has a Charter and seperate funding for a reason: it's to make them independent of state control.

[natashajacobs]

Where did I suggest I want it controlled by the state?! Quite the opposite!!

You're rather naive to suggest that a broadcaster funded by general taxation would be anything other than 'controlled by the state'.

The BBC has a Charter and seperate funding for a reason: it's to make them independent of state control.

Its funding model is already controlled by the state or we wouldn’t be having this conversation 

---

As is channel 4 for that matter which is ad funded so…

[bbctvtechop]

As the licence fee stands then yes of course you have to be doing a specific thing to pay it. But my point was that, in the future, this might not be so. If it was funded from a levy on general taxation then it would be just like all the other public services that we don’t use personally.

Public Services are those provided to everyone by the State, regardless of contribution, or ability to pay.  Welfare, defence, policing, health and education etc are core services for a society, so they are funded from general taxation. Nobody has ever suffered from a lack of media!

Take that argument to any number of countries where the media is controlled by a dictatorial president or state - Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan...

Access to unbiased information should, in my opinion, always have been a universal human right. Even more so in 2022.

[Brekkie]

Because he benefits from the BBC even if he doesn't use it directly.

I don't understand your point @Brekkie.  How does he 'benefit from the BBC' without a TV set?  What service are they providing which he is using without knowing?

A public service contributes to society as a whole rather than to the public individually.  Even if you don't use it first hand you get far more second hand than you realise - and the arts, music, drama and journalism all benefit from the existence of the BBC.

[Stuart]

A public service contributes to society as a whole rather than to the public individually.  Even if you don't use it first hand you get far more second hand than you realise - and the arts, music, drama and journalism all benefit from the existence of the BBC.

Unfortunately, you're then into the realms of claiming that everything people experience, including a plate of fish and chips, should be regarded as a 'public service', and should be funded through general taxation - simply on the basis that they could smell the chips as they walked down the street even if someone else was eating them.

---

Public Services are those provided to everyone by the State, regardless of contribution, or ability to pay.  Welfare, defence, policing, health and education etc are core services for a society, so they are funded from general taxation. Nobody has ever suffered from a lack of media!

Take that argument to any number of countries where the media is controlled by a dictatorial president or state - Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan...

Access to unbiased information should, in my opinion, always have been a universal human right. Even more so in 2022.

I should have been clearer that I was being specific about the UK, as that's the purpose of the debate here. Even people in the countries you name are probably rather more concerned about the lack of core public services than they are about the media.

[natashajacobs]

A public service contributes to society as a whole rather than to the public individually.  Even if you don't use it first hand you get far more second hand than you realise - and the arts, music, drama and journalism all benefit from the existence of the BBC.

Unfortunately, you're then into the realms of claiming that everything people experience, including a plate of fish and chips, should be regarded as a 'public service', and should be funded through general taxation - simply on the basis that they could smell the chips as they walked down the street even if someone else was eating them.

---

Take that argument to any number of countries where the media is controlled by a dictatorial president or state - Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan...

Access to unbiased information should, in my opinion, always have been a universal human right. Even more so in 2022.

I should have been clearer that I was being specific about the UK, as that's the purpose of the debate here. Even people in the countries you name are probably rather more concerned about the lack of core public services than they are about the media.

What I feel you are missing about the BBC in claiming it to be a commodity is that it is not just about the ‘media’ in that populist, Repair Shop, Top Gear sort of way. It’s about all of the elements they bring that enrich all of our lives and our society. Impartial news, original British kids content, BBC Bitesize and their huge array of educational outreach content, the World Service. There is almost certainly an argument for this element of their work to be funded from a levy on general taxation, (indeed world service already is). I understand probably not the latest Holly Willoughby show. But this feels like it’s going round in circles so I’ll bow out from this discussion on that point.

[Aplus1]

It’s about all of the elements they bring that enrich all of our lives and our society. Impartial news, original British kids content, BBC Bitesize and their huge array of educational outreach content, the World Service.

Part of the problem is that whenever there's any hint that the BBC might not receive as much money as it would like, all of those things are amongst the very FIRST things that the BBC choose to cut, rather than the very last.

There doesn't seem to have been any suggestion that maybe the corporation could survive with fewer, or no, editions of a near-daily soap opera, for example. But if the licence fee is supposed to guarantee the life-enriching public service broadcasting which the commercial sector have no incentive to provide, why is the the kind of programming that you CAN already find on many other channels prioritised over the kind which is genuinely not provided elsewhere?

[natashajacobs]

It’s about all of the elements they bring that enrich all of our lives and our society. Impartial news, original British kids content, BBC Bitesize and their huge array of educational outreach content, the World Service.

Part of the problem is that whenever there's any hint that the BBC might not receive as much money as it would like, all of those things are amongst the very FIRST things that the BBC choose to cut, rather than the very last.

There doesn't seem to have been any suggestion that maybe the corporation could survive with fewer, or no, editions of a near-daily soap opera, for example. But if the licence fee is supposed to guarantee the life-enriching public service broadcasting which the commercial sector have no incentive to provide, why is the the kind of programming that you CAN already find on many other channels prioritised over the kind which is genuinely not provided elsewhere?

Good question, that’s one for the BBC management. I imagine because they currently have to persuade people to pay a licence fee rather than having a guaranteed income from tax.

[Stuart]

Good question, that’s one for the BBC management. I imagine because they currently have to persuade people to pay a licence fee rather than having a guaranteed income from tax.

The TVL is a tax, but they have to persuade people to meet the criteria for one and reducing services is not the way

It's not something that will ever have a guaranteed income from general taxation, as I've been trying to explain to you.

The concept of "you don't require this, so I'm going to charge you anyway" just wouldn't wash with anyone, least of all a Parliament which would have to approve it.

[Joe]

I don’t know whether you have children, but let’s say you don’t – would you continue to pay for the education system? Why or why not (beyond ‘because I have to’)?

[bbctvtechop]

Good question, that’s one for the BBC management. I imagine because they currently have to persuade people to pay a licence fee rather than having a guaranteed income from tax.

The TVL is a tax, but they have to persuade people to meet the criteria for one and reducing services is not the way

It's not something that will ever have a guaranteed income from general taxation, as I've been trying to explain to you.

The concept of "you don't require this, so I'm going to charge you anyway" just wouldn't wash with anyone, least of all a Parliament which would have to approve it.

Parliament and councils up and down the country already do that. 

If you don't have kids, you're forced to pay for the education system. 
If you never use public transport, you're forced to subsidise rail and bus services. 
If you are a non smoker you're forced to pay for the healthcare of those who do. 
If you are an 18 year old on minimum wage you're forced to pay for the social care and pensions of 90 year olds you don't know.
If you are a 50 year old with no kids you're forced to pay for youth services.
Etc etc etc