BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen

[Aplus1]

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

Different thing, though.

We can agree that educated children are a good thing and a benefit to society overall, so even if you don't have children, you benefit from the education system.

Even if you never use public transport, you benefit from other people being able to - people who do valuable jobs and need affordable transport to work, children who need to get to school, and so on. The people who work in the shop where you buy your groceries use public transport. Without it, your shopping would cost more, and potentially not be available at all.

If you are a 50 year old with no kids, you still benefit from youth services giving those kids something to do and keeping them on the straight and narrow, protecting them from harm and danger.

However, if you are a 35 year old with no interest in, for example, Tom Cruise movies, you do not benefit from your local cinema requiring everyone in the city to pay to see those movies, even if they do not want to. There is no public benefit to such a requirement.

Maybe the local cinema has frequent free presentations of news and education. We can perhaps agree that this is a good for society - a well-educated and informed population is, of course, valuable. Perhaps this would justify a payment from everyone, if the costs were acceptable and generally bearable. But if this cost were indivisible from the Tom Cruise movies, which everyone would be required to also pay for, many people might say that there was a limit to how far the local cinema should feel entitled to reach into people's pockets. Especially if there were far more showings of the Tom Cruise movies than the educational stuff. That there should be some form of control on what you were and were not required to pay for.

The situation might even be presented as if it were some kind of choice. For example, if you don't want to pay for the Tom Cruise movies, then you're just cut off from the most important source of news and information in the country as well - not just from that cinema, but from all others. Not really a good choice at all.

The suggestion has been made that a blanket Public Service Broadcasting tax could be added to something like local council tax, so that it is (a) universal, but also (b) tapered according to ability to pay. But the exchange would surely have to be that the money ONLY funded material which was unequivocably, unmistakably, Public Service, and that the less essential glitzy entertainment shows should instead be funded by an optional subscription. That would seem to be quite a fair approach, balancing the various needs and desires of all parties quite well - and while there may be a few practical problems at first, they certainly would not be unsolvable.

But would the cinema want that? Probably not. So the question of how to make everyone happy remains a live one which will doubtless be hotly debated for years to come.

[headliner101]

The problem with a PSB tax is that the BBC wanted to avoid that terminology on fears that it could undermine their 'independence' from the government. Furthermore, with C4's privatisation, where else does the PSB tax go to?

[Stuart]

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’)?

Education is one of the essential public services I said were rightly funded through general taxation. It's part of being a citizen and taxpayer.

Strictly and EastEnders cannot ever be classed as an essential service.

[L1]

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’)?

Education is one of the essential public services I said were rightly funded through general taxation. It's part of being a citizen and taxpayer.

Strictly and EastEnders cannot ever be classed as an essential service.

The BBC does more than Strictly and EastEnders though - it seems you are just picking the classic examples to say the BBC should not be publically funded. There is local radio, BBC News and it's world renowned coverage, The Proms, the Natural History Unit and it's various programmes, the investment in British childrens programming not to mention Radio 4, the initatives to back British talent and of course big investment in British production generally. Strictly and EastEnders are obviously not a typical "PSB" programme but they are popular programmes enjoyed by many and the licence fee would surely be rejected by more if the BBC didn't have popular programmes? Of course EastEnders isn't an essential service, but it comes as part of the package which delivers very important services to the public and I think the UK would be worse off without many of the things the BBC do.

[Stuart]

The BBC does more than Strictly and EastEnders though - it seems you are just picking the classic examples to say the BBC should not be publically funded. There is local radio, BBC News and it's world renowned coverage, The Proms, the Natural History Unit and it's various programmes, the investment in British childrens programming not to mention Radio 4, the initatives to back British talent and of course big investment in British production generally. Strictly and EastEnders are obviously not a typical "PSB" programme but they are popular programmes enjoyed by many and the licence fee would surely be rejected by more if the BBC didn't have popular programmes? Of course EastEnders isn't an essential service, but it comes as part of the package which delivers very important services to the public and I think the UK would be worse off without many of the things the BBC do.

I have said repeatedly throughout this thread that I support the TVL, and that I think the current funding model works as long as someone other than DCMS is allowed the determine the annual increase. 

What I disagree with is some of the alternatives suggested, because I think a few of those will simply provide ammunition to the 'anti-BBC' Brigade and the Government (of whatever flavour) who would then feel justified in simply selling it off, to the detriment of everyone.

[natashajacobs]

The BBC does more than Strictly and EastEnders though - it seems you are just picking the classic examples to say the BBC should not be publically funded. There is local radio, BBC News and it's world renowned coverage, The Proms, the Natural History Unit and it's various programmes, the investment in British childrens programming not to mention Radio 4, the initatives to back British talent and of course big investment in British production generally. Strictly and EastEnders are obviously not a typical "PSB" programme but they are popular programmes enjoyed by many and the licence fee would surely be rejected by more if the BBC didn't have popular programmes? Of course EastEnders isn't an essential service, but it comes as part of the package which delivers very important services to the public and I think the UK would be worse off without many of the things the BBC do.

I have said repeatedly throughout this thread that I support the TVL, and that I think the current funding model works as long as someone other than DCMS is allowed the determine the annual increase. 

What I disagree with is some of the alternatives suggested, because I think a few of those will simply provide ammunition to the 'anti-BBC' Brigade and the Government (of whatever flavour) who would then feel justified in simply selling it off, to the detriment of everyone.

I think we have to separate the Strictly esque and core PSB aspects for this discussion to be even worth bothering with. I don’t think there would be mass unrest if BBC News etc was funded in a similar way to the Nordics funding the core services of their public broadcasters. What would be is if strictly was funded in this way, I think you are right on this. However you seem to have changed from a position of ‘it’s outrageous to suggest they pay for something they don’t use’ to ‘it would make a small section of society angry’. Which is not a good enough reason in my opinion to not push through a public policy. Close to 45% of people didn’t want brexit but it happened anyway lol

[GraphicsMan]

One thing I find interesting in this discussion is the thought that programmes like Strictly or EastEnders aren't educational. Technically I suppose that is true. But on one level both programmes are using a different style of format to provide information to the viewers.

With Strictly they demonstrate the different styles of dancing and show training of how to perform certain steps etc. Admittedly it's not a dance training programme, but it will also help to inform viewers and inspire some of them in the pursuit of dancing.

Similarly with EastEnders the number of different storylines that they have covered, and continue to cover, helps to inform viewers about many different subjects through the use of drama.

When you look closely even programmes like Bargain Hunt contain elements of education within it.

[Stuart]

However you seem to have changed from a position of ‘it’s outrageous to suggest they pay for something they don’t use’ to ‘it would make a small section of society angry’.

I haven't changed my view in the slightest, and you have seriously mis-quoted me.  Please withdraw your comment!

[Aplus1]

With Strictly they demonstrate the different styles of dancing and show training of how to perform certain steps etc. Admittedly it's not a dance training programme, but it will also help to inform viewers and inspire some of them in the pursuit of dancing.

Similarly with EastEnders the number of different storylines that they have covered, and continue to cover, helps to inform viewers about many different subjects through the use of drama.

The problem with that, is that suddenly everything that's not on the BBC also becomes public service broadcasting. Now The Chase is considered to be factual education. Judge Judy is a valuable public service teaching the key skills of conflict resolution. And the five minute free view on Television X is an unfiltered presentation of body image and human anatomy. You can make anything sound noble if you want to, but it doesn't change what the content really is.

[no1fanofthepals]

Is it just me or is this turning into a discussion about what is and isn't public service broadcasting?

[natashajacobs]

However you seem to have changed from a position of ‘it’s outrageous to suggest they pay for something they don’t use’ to ‘it would make a small section of society angry’.

I haven't changed my view in the slightest, and you have seriously mis-quoted me.  Please withdraw your comment!

Apologies if you feel I misquoted you, it sounded to me that you were changing your narrative but if you weren’t then no worries.

[Brekkie]

I have said repeatedly throughout this thread that I support the TVL, and that I think the current funding model works as long as someone other than DCMS is allowed the determine the annual increase. 

What I disagree with is some of the alternatives suggested, because I think a few of those will simply provide ammunition to the 'anti-BBC' Brigade and the Government (of whatever flavour) who would then feel justified in simply selling it off, to the detriment of everyone.

And I think this goes back to the point that the licence fee endures as the funding mechanism because the alternatives are problematic too