Scrap the BBC Channel and scrap TV licences.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48583487
Printable View
Scrap the BBC Channel and scrap TV licences.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48583487
Never did understand why a very wealthy pensioner gets all these benifits but somebody who is being abused by the UK's easy hire and fire work practices, gets none of them. Well done BBC, it is time to face reality, working people just cannot continue to fund the ever increasing dependancy ratio.
Not all pensioners are wealthy far from it.
And the demographic timebomb is an unfolding disaster. The unnaccounted pension cost debt is 2 trillion at actuarial rates. The ratios are getting out of hand.
No government has ever had the balls to do it, but since 2008 the only option has been to halve public sector final salary pensions, all of them, because as the 15 year bond rate has halved because of MP directed central bank obsession with cheap money so annuity rates have fallen to less than half, so too must pensions. And the public sector need to feel the same pain.
MPs will never do it, their own pension is a disgrace to the taxpayer. It is twice as good as all but firemen. And even that is not as ridiculous as Euro MP pensions which is double that again.
Far from Corbyn spending more money, he needs to work out how to chop it down by 20 percent at least just to keep present levels of pensions viable.
On the BBC however I think you are wrong. Until paying for the BBC becomes optional, the old age waiver should stay.
Why is that relevant and who said they are? The number of households on pension credit could number 1.5 million by 2020 when this change comes in. They will not pay.
I do agree with you on the BBC being optional, in the modern era, with so many entertainment options the idea of a compulsory payment is crazy.
I do however think the BBC is value for money, but then I don't subscribe to anything, but for many people it will be the exact opposite.
The point I make is the overwhelming majority are not "wealthy" in most contexts.
Just as those in the top band tax that get guillotined by osbornes pension reforms are a tiny proportion: but those reforms are simply unfair on entrepreneurs. :-(
With the normal hopeless inefficiency of every public service, the cost of means testing to eliminate the few would be far more than it would ever save.
I agree with you that it is an anachronism in this day and age. I disagree that it is value for money and I think it would be very hard for it be so given its funding structure. Unlike other broadcasters it has no incentive to innovate or make economies. It's income stream is set for a number of years through the licence fee. A good example was the controversy a couple of years ago when it emerged that male presenters were being paid more than their female counterparts. What shocked me at the time was not the amount that the female presenters were being paid but rather the exorbitant amounts the male ones like John Humphreys were being paid. He was "earning" between £600k to £650k for presenting the Radio 4 Today programme. Which other broadcasting organisation could afford to pay so much for this type of programme with such a small audience?
It's not even as if the BBC is impartial these days (or even tries to be). If I want an exclusively metropolitan liberal woke world view I can choose to read the Guardian. I object to being taxed for the privilege.
Small audience? 6.8million, and that's after losing around 800,000 listeners over the last year. And the leading politicians do still think it's worth appearing on the programme. Anyway, I would probably demand £600k if I had to come to work at 4.30am :)
The reason for the recent loss of audience (see above) is indeed attributed to perceived bias: apparently the BBC is "too soft on Brexiteers" and has been showing "overt hostility" to the Labour left. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8474691.html
To be fair to the BBC, it has been missed in most of the reporting that it is the government who decided to remove this free TV license benefit, not the BBC.
When free TV licenses for over-75s were introduced, the government paid the BBC the money "lost" due to the free licenses. The government decided to stop providing this money to the BBC.
Everyone says the government has to cut spending, this seems like a reasonable way to cut spending.
I'd caveat my answer by saying that I think the TV license is a stupid way to raise funds for the BBC in this day and age. It would seem much more reasonable just to put it in general (income?) tax and give the BBC its stiped from there. No more need to pay the tv licensing company, or take people to court for non-payment, or pay for people to stay in jail and all the other associated costs.
I'd further say that the BBC does seem to over-reach its remit. I kinda don't really see why it has to do so much as it does, the massive internet presence, so many radio and tv stations making 24 hours coverage... I really would not have a problem if the BBC cut back on what it does.
I do believe that there is a place for a public service broadcaster to make the valuable documentary/arts/investigative/news items which it would not be commercially viable for a commercial broadcaster to make. In arts for example it is enriching to be introduced to new or alternative music/drama/literature that we may not otherwise discover. Otherwise we'd just be left with a regurgitation of the mass appeal stuff which a commercial broadcaster can guarantee to make money on. I don't think they need to make quite as much/any(?) of the gameshows, soaps, etc etc, and why do we need 24 hour news, 3 in depth news reports a day would be enough and if you miss one, you can watch it on catch-up.
There are plenty of people who work unsociable hours.
According to Humphreys himself, he never asked for this amount of money. They just kept increasing his salary. Perhaps if they were more concerned about how they were going to pay for it they might have been a little less generous.
Not to mention all the BBC executives on ridiculous salaries.
Too soft on Brexiteer's, hilarious! For a long time the Today programme didn't seem to acknowledge that people wanting to leave the EU even existed.Quote:
The reason for the recent loss of audience (see above) is indeed attributed to perceived bias: apparently the BBC is "too soft on Brexiteers" and has been showing "overt hostility" to the Labour left. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8474691.html
Surveys done by News-watch showed that of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on Radio 4’s Today programme in survey periods between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2 per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.