BBC license fee ‘to be abolished in 2027’. What will that mean?

[Serge Forward]

Radio Stoke used to have a really good Northern Soul show from a survivor of the first time round IIRC

Anything not the usual generic pap will most likely go the same way. By the way, uncle Frank is on now till 10pm. I would heartily recommend it to all you funksters out there

 

[JimW]

Anything not the usual generic pap will most likely go the same way. By the way, uncle Frank is on now till 10pm. I would heartily recommend it to all you funksters out there

It's you, isn't it, "serge"

 

[weltweit]

The licence fee at least broadly leaves the BBC to get on with it, largely free of nit picking from politicians though there is some.

Being paid for by taxation might allow greater political meddling which can't be a good thing.

And I think funding by advertising isn't on the cards no? Hope not.

 

[Lord Camomile]

I don't have a TV licence so can't comment on current content but when I did the BBC fodder was extremely poor. Won't be missed.

That's pretty dismissive to suggest that none of its 9 TV channels (along with the local variants), 11 national radio stations, 9 regional radio stations, 40 local radio stations, plus the enormous websites and subsites would be missed.

Also curious as to what you'd consider good fodder.

 

[redsquirrel]

One of the things that'll go will be radio 4, which is pretty much unique as a free radio station that does news, comedy, drama, etc. Fantastic resource for blind people, as well as anyone who wants to listen to the radio but doesn't want music. Podcasts replace some of it, but you have to hunt them down and use bandwidth to access them.

Why would R4 go? It's one of their flagship channels and probably one that is particularly liked by their core audience. I'd put good money on R4 being one of the last things to be cut.
----
Frankly I'd be pretty surprised if there was not at least some sort of government funding going into the BBC. The license fee may not be popular but I'm not sure how popular totally commercialising the BBC will be with voters - particularly those in middle England seats

 

[Serge Forward]

It's you, isn't it, "serge"

Funnily enough, I was at a gig at The Musician club in Leicester by Wolves funk/hip hop band, Cantaloop. They were fucking brilliant. Uncle Frank was in the audience and joined the band for the whole gig. They were quality and fucking smashed it that night. Sadly, there was only about 15 people in the audience. The owner of the Musician told me it'd be rammed the night after for some tribute band. Oh, and Uncle Frank went to the bar and bought shots for the band and all the audience. That bought my loyalty

 

[bimble]

I see that ‘scrap the license fee’ was a bill introduced by some joke mp called peter bone, whose twitter (apart from claiming the kudos for this announcement) is just a load of links to GBnews and stuff about how great nigel farage is.



Definitely a distraction tactic this announcement coming now I’m pretty sure.

 

[Raheem]

The licence fee at least broadly leaves the BBC to get on with it, largely free of nit picking from politicians though there is some.

Being paid for by taxation might allow greater political meddling which can't be a good thing.

Yes, French TV was set up as a government-funded public service. The government raided and ground down its budget, so that today French TV is almost entirely cheap, shoddy crap and nothing worth watching is free-to-air.

Sweden has a hypothecated broadcasting income tax, which is maybe a better model than either. But I don't know what Swedish TV is like.

 

[Supine]

I pay for Netflix and YouTube Premium. The BBC offers far better value for money.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

It'll have the effect of making the UK's media content a mono-culture.

The argument "I only watch Dr Who and that's mediocre" is taking a very narrow and personal view. It's a bit like saying "why should I pay towards the NHS - all I've had is a few GP appointments and the Covid vaccinations "

Or 'I don't have kids, why should I have to pay for schools and youth clubs?'

Or 'I don't catch buses or trams or trains, why should I have to pay for public transport?'

Or 'I don't use the library or go to the art gallery/museum/theatre/concert hall, etc, why should I have to pay for arts and culture?

 

[kabbes]

One of the things that'll go will be radio 4, which is pretty much unique as a free radio station that does news, comedy, drama, etc. Fantastic resource for blind people, as well as anyone who wants to listen to the radio but doesn't want music. Podcasts replace some of it, but you have to hunt them down and use bandwidth to access them.

Ah yes, I remember radio 4. I used to listen to radio 4, back before we had podcasts. Terrible comedy, as I recall.

 

[kabbes]

There's a lot of people on this thread who seem to think that mediocre entertainment programmes are somehow in the same category of public service good as health, education and transport.

If that's what you think then fine, I guess the BBC is a public good that needs paying for. I don't get why you aren't making similar noise about publicly paying for all the other leisure activities that people pursue -- why is telly so special? Why not similarly pay for dry ski slopes and rockclimbing walls and golf and widescale opera free at the point of access? -- but so be it.

Personally, however, I can see a difference between the need for the NHS and the need for Danny Dyer's The Wall.

 

[Carvaged]

Or 'I don't have kids, why should I have to pay for schools and youth clubs?'

Or 'I don't catch buses or trams or trains, why should I have to pay for public transport?'

Or 'I don't use the library or go to the art gallery/museum/theatre/concert hall, etc, why should I have to pay for arts and culture?

It's Thatcher's legacy - the ME generation come home to roost, with attitudes that barely extend beyond their own narrow interests, and a blindness to the needs, interests or value of supporting the broader communities and society we live in.

 

[JimW]

I don't get why you aren't making similar noise about publicly paying for all the other leisure activities that people pursue -- why is telly so special? -- but so be it.

But we are, not got much time for badminton and pilates but the council should provide a leisure centre. Or panto etc.

 

[kabbes]

But we are, not got much time for badminton and pilates but the council should provide a leisure centre. Or panto etc.

They don't, though. They subcontract leisure services to for-profit organisations, who charge through the nose for access, thus stratifying the population with regards to who can do the activities. And I'm not seeing any widespread views that this should change, regardless of what people on this message board might think about it. But apparently, suggesting that the BBC shouldn't be paid out of regressive taxation rocks the nation.

 

[JimW]

They don't, though. They subcontract leisure services to for-profit organisations, who charge through the nose for access, thus stratifying the population with regards to who can do the activities. And I'm not seeing any widespread views that this should change, regardless of what people on this message board might think about it. But apparently, suggesting that the BBC shouldn't be paid out of regressive taxation rocks the nation.

Principle remains the same though - collective provision of certain services, including some shonky leisure ones. of course in recent times that's all been undermined but don't see why that means we should just wave the latest example on its way. You're right that ot so much fuss is made about access to leisure centres or the removal of sports fields but that doesn't make another grab back all right, even if the current provider is far from ideal
ETA Missed your last bit - because we know this isn't about a fairer funding model or a genuinely public service but rather a further push towards the market.

 

[Balbi]

Dissolving another genuinely national institution, the BBC, after slowly carving up the NHS, defunding local authorities and community services, destroying the state housing stock, privatizing rail, water and power.

The long term effect is to make things shitter and more expensive, and remove the conceptual connections between people in the country that is embodied in these institutions, leaving everyone alienated and slightly more desperate than before.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Both of these statements are true. It would be more efficient to say 'there is a strong correlation between support for the BBC and being a liberal wanker'.

I think they figure if they're pissing of the lefties and the right-wingers, then they're doing something right.

Accusations of bias come from both sides of the political spectrum, but personally I reckon the BBC's news and current affairs coverage has become increasingly right-wing over the past few years.

I've listened to and watched BBC news and current affairs coverage for around four decades. I stopped watching BBC Question Time several years ago because of how they were promoting Nigel Farage and his views and they arguably created a monster and set us, as a country, on a course to Brexit, because the Overton window shifted and Cameron wanted to appease the right-wing racists.

I used to watch Newsnight, stopped bothering.

And I woke up to the Today programme for decades too but it was just making me too angry and putting me in a bad mood at the the start of the day. Again, giving too much airtime to Nigel Farage, who's tried and failed to be elected as an MP and who was given too much prominence considering the (lack of) electoral support his party had. I mean, in comparison to eg Greens or other minor parties, it was way out of whack. And all the nonsense about 'balance' in reporting climate change meaning they gave airtime to sceptic Nigel Lawson.

 

[Lord Camomile]

There's a lot of people on this thread who seem to think that mediocre entertainment programmes are somehow in the same category of public service good as health, education and transport.

If that's what you think then fine, I guess the BBC is a public good that needs paying for. I don't get why you aren't making similar noise about publicly paying for all the other leisure activities that people pursue -- why is telly so special? Why not similarly pay for dry ski slopes and rockclimbing walls and golf and widescale opera free at the point of access? -- but so be it.

Show me the legislation and I'll vote for it

Personally, however, I can see a difference between the need for the NHS and the need for Danny Dyer's The Wall.

A little disingenuous, no? That's not really all the BBC puts out, is it?

I think a public service that provides information (i.e. education), entertainment and culture is just as important to individuals and a society as health, schooling and transport.

The current incarnation of the BBC is a twisted shadow of what it could be, but again, genuinely, what's the alternative?

 

[tonysingh]

As long as they keep commissioning Mrs Brown's Boys, I'm happy

 

[sleaterkinney]

There's a lot of people on this thread who seem to think that mediocre entertainment programmes are somehow in the same category of public service good as health, education and transport.

If that's what you think then fine, I guess the BBC is a public good that needs paying for. I don't get why you aren't making similar noise about publicly paying for all the other leisure activities that people pursue -- why is telly so special? Why not similarly pay for dry ski slopes and rockclimbing walls and golf and widescale opera free at the point of access? -- but so be it.

Personally, however, I can see a difference between the need for the NHS and the need for Danny Dyer's The Wall.

It’s not just that though, it’s News, on tv and the web, which is why it’s being targeted here.

 

[JimW]

We really ought to be building a People's Palace of Culture in every parish, with forced attendance at healthy folk events. I shall not rest until we restore the DDR in England's green and pleasant land.

 

[scifisam]

Why would R4 go? It's one of their flagship channels and probably one that is particularly liked by their core audience. I'd put good money on R4 being one of the last things to be cut.
----
Frankly I'd be pretty surprised if there was not at least some sort of government funding going into the BBC. The license fee may not be popular but I'm not sure how popular totally commercialising the BBC will be with voters - particularly those in middle England seats

It's got to be the hardest to make any money from, so will be cut.

 

[MickiQ]

Or 'I don't have kids, why should I have to pay for schools and youth clubs?'

I had this argument with a guy at work once, he had no kids so why was he paying for education. At the time Middle was doing her nursing degree at Nottingham, I pointed out that it was costing the state £70K to train her and the cost of training a nurse is pennies compared to the cost of training a doctor. If I had to find that £70K she wouldn't have gone, however I would still be able to count on her in my dotage who did he expect to count on?
Just because you can't see a personal immediate benefit to something doesn't mean that there isn't one.

 

[redsquirrel]

It's got to be the hardest to make any money from, so will be cut.

The Today programme is probably still the biggest news interview in the UK. R4 has enough cultural cache, particularly with those with the greatest social/financial clout that it will be safe. Also I suspect the costs of running it are comparatively pretty low.

Far more likely to go will be sort of small music channels that PursuedByBears mentioned

 

[JimW]

I had this argument with a guy at work once, he had no kids so why was he paying for education. At the time Middle was doing her nursing degree at Nottingham, I pointed out that it was costing the state £70K to train her and the cost of training a nurse is pennies compared to the cost of training a doctor. If I had to find that £70K she wouldn't have gone, however I would still be able to count on her in my dotage who did he expect to count on?
Just because you can't see a personal immediate benefit to something doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Company would probably have done just fine with an entirely illiterate and innumerate workforce

 

[scifisam]

They don't, though. They subcontract leisure services to for-profit organisations, who charge through the nose for access, thus stratifying the population with regards to who can do the activities. And I'm not seeing any widespread views that this should change, regardless of what people on this message board might think about it. But apparently, suggesting that the BBC shouldn't be paid out of regressive taxation rocks the nation.

That's... not true. There are thousands of publicly-owned leisure centres. That's why the govt allocated money to them to support them during covid.

Government announces allocation of £100 million to support recovery of leisure centres

£100 million has now been allocated to 266 local authorities across England, to support the recovery of publicly-owned leisure centres and gyms

www.gov.uk

Those leisure centres are often (but not always) cheaper than private ones regardless of income, and they always have discount schemes for disabled people.

There are also huge numbers of heavily subsidised sports classes (especially for children, disabled people and people over 65) funded by local authorities, not charities. Parks, with their free-to-use basketball courts etc, are funded by local govt.

 

[scifisam]

The Today programme is probably still the biggest news interview in the UK. R4 has enough cultural cache, particularly with those with the greatest social/financial clout that it will be safe. Also I suspect the costs of running it are comparatively pretty low.

Far more likely to go will be sort of small music channels that PursuedByBears mentioned

The music channels will definitely go, but it's naïve to think R4 is safe. You'd think that it being popular with older demographics would help, but the govt has increased the minimum pension age and not lost any votes.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The Today programme is probably still the biggest news interview in the UK. R4 has enough cultural cache, particularly with those with the greatest social/financial clout that it will be safe. Also I suspect the costs of running it are comparatively pretty low.

Far more likely to go will be sort of small music channels that PursuedByBears mentioned

The current cabinet have already boycotted Today.

 

[kenny g]

That's pretty dismissive to suggest that none of its 9 TV channels (along with the local variants), 11 national radio stations, 9 regional radio stations, 40 local radio stations, plus the enormous websites and subsites would be missed.

Also curious as to what you'd consider good fodder.

Thanks for the list - just reminds me of the mediocrity of what is offered across so many platforms. The wonders of three counties radio.... the delights of BBC radio London ... the fine presenters of Radio 2..

The BBC is and always has been extremely poor value for money and treats its audience with disdain .. workers playtime FFS.

A seminal series like the World at War was made by Thames TV whilst the BBC were serving up Jimmy Savile.