Threats are nothing new, but threats in the current period create a rather different atmosphere. We have certain movements and ideology going on, and seemingly our ability to remember that human brains and emotions are fallible has been forgotten too. The motivations of the people currently running things seem very irrational and emotionally-led.
I realise this is all very generic discussion, but none of you need anything pointing about how the world looks right now.
Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, told Sky News that the government had not made any “preordained” decisions on future funding models.
“I would be pretty cautious of some unattributed comments,”
he said. “There is a consultation out there. It is just a consultation at this stage. There are no further decisions made at all. The BBC is a much loved national treasure. We all want it to be a huge success. But everybody, including the BBC themselves, recognises that in a changing world the BBC will have to change.”
Nothing will materialise of these threats, they are simply a distraction and a little bit of meat thrown to the ultra conservatives who hate nearly everything about the BBC - but I bet most of them use it every single day.
Perhaps. But regardless: the current funding model for the BBC is unsustainable in the medium term. The cän can be kicked down the road a few more times, but the distance it can be kicked is getting shorter all the time.
Nothing will materialise of these threats, they are simply a distraction and a little bit of meat thrown to the ultra conservatives who hate nearly everything about the BBC - but I bet most of them use it every single day.
Perhaps. But regardless: the current funding model for the BBC is unsustainable in the medium term. The cän can be kicked down the road a few more times, but the distance it can be kicked is getting shorter all the time.
Oh I agree with you on that - the current model has to end in 2027 without a doubt, but what do you replace it with?
There is a possibility of abolishing the licence fee and putting a "broadcasting" tax into the current council tax bills per year. This idea was floated earlier and it could be a way of ensuring households who find it hard to pay the licence fee now will only have to pay a smaller amount in their council tax each year toward the BBC.
Not all commercial services have to be profitable: look at
Sky News
, and note that
Times Radio
discussed elsewhere is planned to be commercial-free and presumably loss-making).
Being cynical I can't help noting that Times Radio is owned by Murdoch, as is the Times newspaper. With that in mind I wonder why a newspaper might possibly suggest the BBC's radio channels could be sold off as part of the licence fee being axed, and who might want to the buy these stations...
I don't want to talk too much about these people as they don't deserve the time or emotional investment but Cummings is some what the radical and Johnson is trying to be a centre right PM.
Pensioners (who vote in droves) are kicking off enough as it is about the threat of losing free tv licenses. Imagine the uproar if they stuck countryfile, bargain hunt and strictly behind a paywall and forced them to pay.
The tories are supposed to be the party of getting out of everyone's way and letting them get on with their lives. Unfortunately for them, despite their free market values, in this country that actually means watching and listening to the bbc.
Nothing will materialise of these threats, they are simply a distraction and a little bit of meat thrown to the ultra conservatives who hate nearly everything about the BBC - but I bet most of them use it every single day.
Perhaps. But regardless: the current funding model for the BBC is unsustainable in the medium term. The cän can be kicked down the road a few more times, but the distance it can be kicked is getting shorter all the time.
Oh I agree with you on that - the current model has to end in 2027 without a doubt, but what do you replace it with?
There is a possibility of abolishing the licence fee and putting a "broadcasting" tax into the current council tax bills per year. This idea was floated earlier and it could be a way of ensuring households who find it hard to pay the licence fee now will only have to pay a smaller amount in their council tax each year toward the BBC.
Adding it to the council tax might be fairer in some ways. Less evasion and potentially a discount for single occupancy households
:-(
A former member
In Greece it was added on to your electricity bill so every property would pay. However that's a public utility over there so probably not the best option here.
Council tax wouldn't necessarily cover second homes, and how would you collect from businesses?
.@thesundaytimes reports only Radio3 & Radio 4 will survive under new govt rules. BBC will be forced to sell all other radio stations. Is that the same Radio 4 the government is currently boycotting in the morning?How will scrutiny of politicians work post 2027? Asking for a mate
This was recommended in the Peacock Report of 1986 and as usual was buried after a few weeks of it in the press - take no notice of this nonsense.
The Peacock Report was commissioned by Thatcher with the express intent that it would recommend scrapping the licence fee, and then it went in completely the other direction to what she was expecting, so the issue was dropped, but a large chunk of the report's other recommendations would go on to live in the form of the 1990 Broadcasting Act.
Council tax wouldn't necessarily cover second homes, and how would you collect from businesses?
Where second homes are let out commercially (if only superficially) non-domestic rates are charged instead. These can attract small business rate relief.
This in itself is something that many people are urging the government to reform.
A business with a television could be required to pay a fee, perhaps the BBC would contract with PRS to manage this?