Today’s headlines .........

[MyNameIsTerry]

I live on the outskirts of a city. The countryside is a 5-10 minute cycle ride away in several directions for me

Nut my city isn't important so it's full of boarded up areas, some with a newer building near it with one of those "funded by the EU" signs plastered all over it whilst all around is the domain of rats & pigeons, so our surrounding countryside is less at threat. No one wants to come here! Even HS2 is going to pass through foot down firmly on the accelerator

I love the countryside and I really don't want to see it eroded further by more roads and housing estates. Remember the days of our youth when we could walk through so many more rural areas? Great memories. Much better than all the new brick shoeboxes or repetitive estate housing we see there now.

Yep, agree with you on HS2. It's another one great for the middle classes and the local economies won't be boosted by it. Even if they do it will be because areas increase in size and the likes of big supermarket chains and shopping villages start emerging. I would rather it kept for the wildlife.

[mezzaninedoor]

I dont live in a dormitory village but I live in a village that has trebled in size in the last 40 years.
We used to live on the edges of farm land but now you have to go a long way to get to the outskirts of the village and then you can almost see the next village.
The nearest City is 20 miles away, thats Norwich, which to be fair is a lovely City, it has problems but less than most. The nearest Town, pop. 70000 is Yarmouth and thats 3 miles away, Yarmouth is dieing though whilst Norwich is thriving.
We live in a semi-rural area and we do need to defend the rurality that we still have, we want to try and stop further building on green field sites which this Government unlocked.
We ave brown field sites that need to be exploited first, in fact in our locality we have some housing that was 95% finished then the Developer went bust and its been left empty for the last 4 years unfinished.

[MyNameIsTerry]

The BBC takes a big dump on one society's vulnerable groups, the over 75's. The government makes them responsible and in a matter of 5 years they effectively scrap it to make more profit. The government should take it back then to protect people from money grubbing execs: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...test-june-2020

[mezzaninedoor]

The BBC takes a big dump on one society's vulnerable groups, the over 75's. The government makes them responsible and in a matter of 5 years they effectively scrap it to make more profit. The government should take it back then to protect people from money grubbing execs: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...test-june-2020

Totally disagree with your reading of this story Terry, sorry.
The BBC has already had to deal with ZERO real term increases in funds for 7/8 years under the Tories.
The Tories have then stitched up the BBC by giving them the responsibility of free funding for over 75's, that should never be the responsibility of the BBC it should be a Government responsibility.
The BBC doesn't make huge profits, it commercially releases and sells overseas its ware which it ploughs back into Programming, thats why it has Oversight in the form currently of the BBC Trust.
I'm not seeing the BBC hasn't made missteps in recent years but as a public service broadcaster I still personally think it has a lot lot more positives than negatives. I would like it to step back from the repetitive nature of its daytime programming where it seems to make programmes on a template in a very narrow and not artistically rewarding band of output. Its tentpole work though in recent years has been fantastic, recently Years and Years, Killing Eve, Les Miserables, Gentleman Jack, all great stuff.

The right wing media were always going to spin this as a BBC failure. I think its an abject failure of Government and yes, they should provide the cash for it and not the £9billion Boris wants for his tax cuts for the 40% payers.

imho

[MyNameIsTerry]

Something often missed is how the BBC also get payed to maintain the network. Is this just from the government? Do people understand how radio teleswitching in the electricity market works? The distribution companies actually get charged by the BBC for maintaining that network as a daily signal has to be sent to keep teleswitching meters up to date. Yet all we hear is the BBC is funded by our licence and government funding.

When I saw the BBC pursuing the distribution companies further, over 5 years ago now, they were increasing the many millions which they explained kept all signalling equipment up to date but also planned improvement works. So I'm a little skeptical about this situation knowing millions are paid through this (and how many others) other route. Yes, the government pushed it onto them but I would rather the BBC push back than lazily push it out onto pensioners.

My parents are affected by this simply because they aren't eligible for pension credit because they won't qualify yet they are typical of pensioners balancing a budget to keep going.

Looking back at energy again many pensioners who can't claim a penny fall under fuel poverty. I would be fine with the BBC means testing but falling back on pension credit is lazy and hits a lot of less well of folk too.

I wonder if I could find the figures for the contracts with the BBC?

I realise those on "the other side" will spin it but I'm not interested in that and I'm looking at two people who will get hit with an extra bill.

[MyNameIsTerry]

The BBC doesn't make huge profits, it commercially releases and sells overseas its ware which it ploughs back into Programming, thats why it has Oversight in the form currently of the BBC Trust.

I have an issue with this though. The licence fee should only be a mechanism to pay for the network itself. Anything beyond that is up to the channel to make money.

Does the licence fee cover it? Plus government funding? Plus all the other pay outs like the one I mentioned above.

On your last point, did you see Jeremy Hunt saying he would drop taxes to "supercharge" the economy? But would it bring in enough to cover what it needs to pay for now and more?

Corporations legally dodging tax is very unpopular with the public for obvious reasons. He wants to reduce it to the ROI level which the EU are taking action against (well, it's helps Macron divert attention away from his own woes and makes him look like EU president material ). The EU are not going to be happy with a race to the bottom in tax so we may face some backlash to that from Brussels, even if ROI will look at their feet.

On a slightly better note Leadsom proposes to take people out of the negotiation equation and secure their rights. As does Gove. That's at least something for the poor sods stuck in the middle of these idiots.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Retracted free TV licences for the over-75s is another can of socio-political worms. For a start off, since the mid 2000s the TV licence has been categorised as a tax on owning and using a television receiver because it’s compulsory, regardless of whether the TV is used for watching solely commercial stations via antennae, cable and satellite or inclusively of BBC channels. It is iniquitous (because of the obscure ways in which this ‘TV Tax’ is collected, enforced and divided up amongst the various BBC departments, subsidiary companies, sub-contractors and other ‘unaccountability’). The fee is jealously guarded by the BBC – no other corporation has the level of autonomy the BBC exercises over money raised from direct public taxation, and it goes to extraordinary lengths to protect its funding, including excessive use of fines and even imprisonment for licence non-compliance. The BBC defends its monopoly of ‘national broadcaster’ and subsequent fiscal arrangements by declaring itself unique and impartial. Both of these claims are becoming difficult to sustain in the public’s opinion.

OK, so the free licence is abolished and those over-75s who’ve enjoyed freedom from this burdensome taxation now find a demand for payment shoved through their letterboxes. How many are going to pay, do you think? Some won’t even know what such a demand means, while others are going to ignore it in the hope it’ll ‘go away’ or that the TV licensing people can whistle for the money. I expect a certain number will get away with non-payment. But others may face legal action…. unpleasant!


My own opinion? I no longer believe the TV licence fee is ‘value-for-money’. There’s very little difference in the quality of general programming between the BBC and its commercial competitors, and I see that the BBC has itself become far more commercial than it once was. Folks often say ‘the BBC is a national treasure’. It might have been, once upon a time, but now it cannot in all honesty occupy that moral high ground. Abolish the licence altogether...?


NB: Eric-the-Idle said (sarcastically) Britain now has so many ‘national treasures’ it’s become "National Treasure Island"

If there were Brexit counting the BBC in such a way would make you an imperialist longing for the old days of empire

For me, it's another set of channels. Good shows, bad shows. They stand out for wildlife and their new reporting is better than most. However, that doesn't mean they are an untouchable entity and should compete with the rest. Only the network itself is where tax should be applied. Does it?

What do the other broadcasters pay for the use of the network? Why is it a % of the vulnerable will be expected to pay this, a bunfight between government and the BBC, yet large greedy corporations may not? Have their network charges been increased to help cover the shortfall? If not, why not? They can pass the cost onto those who want to advertise on their channels. Wouldn't this "socialise" the costs more as the most it then hits the public is over a large % either through content change or increased pricing of their products?

Other privatised industries don't work so well as a comparison e.g. electricity where the network charges are paid for you out of what you pay for your bill. There are other industries where we pay for services we may not use such as rail which is supported via taxation whether you use it or not. Roads the same. BT charge you for network maintenance even if you don't use their service itself and you can opt not to have a line. This can be said for the BBC where you can opt not to have TV.

However I question this because I'm cynical of it. They only started paying in 2018 with full payment taking over in 2020. Along pops a survey and they pull it as much as they can get away with. If they cancelled it all they would be under more pressure due to crossing over into what can be seen as those in potential poverty. Also, their survey wouldn't support pulling it altogether as only 15% support scrapping all concessions. With 37% supporting reform they can try this. Interestingly 48% said they were in favour of continuation of the concessions. It feels like the BBC never planned on taking this on if they could avoid it. This doesn't absolve government failure but I'm more interested in the financial impacts to over 75's than I am whether the content suffers.

Hopefully this will be resolved through propping up of those who are not on Pension Credit, but I can see the government pointing the finger at the BBC whilst they do nothing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48583487

This then is a compromise; around a third of the cost will be borne by the BBC and two thirds passed on to 'wealthier' pensioners. The elderly are by far the biggest consumers of the BBC's output, the average age of BBC TV's audience is now over 62, the question is how far younger licence fee payers should subsidise these older viewers. As consumption of traditional TV by younger viewers continues to drop there could well be questions about why they are being expected to pay for a service that the heaviest users get for free.

Hang on, I thought the youthquake was for more left leaning? But when it comes to media it's more right wing?

My parents certainly aren't wealthy. Typical working class of their generation with kids, several jobs (2 part time in my mum's case) and they aren't eligible for Pension Credit so they get lumped into the same bracket as truly rich pensioners. That's a lurch from one end to the other and will hurt the working classes.

Will they start taking pensioners to court? That comes with public backlash.

AgeUK made some interesting points about how when you are old the TV might be your only companion. At a time when they are trying to combat loneliness in the elderly.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Ah!… never mind the quality, feel the width… Terry, you wouldn’t be implying aged folks will watch any old tosh from the BBC as long as they don’t have to pay for it, would you? (Actually, the answer to my snidey question is answered in part by your concluding comment on AgeUK’s perspective.)

You can see where an element of resentment creeps in here. We’re back to ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ and who gets most benefit from the ‘TV Tax’, and who ‘deserves’ concessions and who doesn’t – a socio-political minefield!.

Nah, just that you are less likely to moan about not having programmes aimed at your demographic, or when they are removed, because you will just change channel. Less likely to go all faux outage on social media about it.

Yes, I've been reading comments on other forums about this and it does come back to division. The polling comes in at 52/48 amusingly and a lot of the usual supporters of slashing pensioners rights in favour of the youth (because pensioners are all well off ) seems to froth out.

I see an amusing statistic that Gary Lineker's salary could fund 11k licences. Regardless of age slashing that one would be beneficial

Another take I noted was the entitlement that those paying for the services should be dictating where they were deployed. Another "at odds" view of many supposed left leaning people I've seen who don't realise they are displaying a more typical Tory trait they are always complaining about.

[mezzaninedoor]

My parents are definitely not wealthy but they do not get pension credit.
I think the TV licence consession for OAP's is a good one, I just dont think our public service broadcaster should fund it.
Maybe I have rose tinted specs on but I think the UK culture is much the better for us having a public service broadcaster like the BBC.
Im not sure that the TV licence has to be good value for money, though I think compared with Sky, Virgin etc I think it demonstrably is. Maybe vs. Netflix / Amazon Prime it isn't.
This sort of consession is a socio-political minefield and the young do feel that they are struggling to have stuff that prior generations have had as well so its very complex to know what the right answers are.

[MyNameIsTerry]

My parents are definitely not wealthy but they do not get pension credit.
I think the TV licence consession for OAP's is a good one, I just dont think our public service broadcaster should fund it.
Maybe I have rose tinted specs on but I think the UK culture is much the better for us having a public service broadcaster like the BBC.
Im not sure that the TV licence has to be good value for money, though I think compared with Sky, Virgin etc I think it demonstrably is. Maybe vs. Netflix / Amazon Prime it isn't.
This sort of consession is a socio-political minefield and the young do feel that they are struggling to have stuff that prior generations have had as well so its very complex to know what the right answers are.

It should be about the network, not the content. You need a licence to watch TV, not to watch the BBC. Anything over costs to maintain it should be coming from other revenue streams in my opinion. I'm not sure how much does and doesn't but since they have such a huge content level and all the costs that go with it I would be suspecting the licence fee goes on content too. These days that's contentious as it beings in value for money. Poor performance isn't challenging because it's a tax.