[slow motion]

A review of Tory media policy led by the former BBC director general Greg Dyke will recommend scrapping the licence fee to save more than £100m a year.

Under the proposal, the money the BBC spends on administering and enforcing the £142.50 annual charge would be ploughed into a fund to pay for public service broadcasting on commercial channels – possibly including local news. The BBC would still be publicly funded, but its annual £3.6bn income would come from general taxation or via a government grant.

According to the BBC's 2007-2008 annual report, the corporation spent £123m collecting the licence fee in the 12-month period to the end of March 2008.

The Guardian: Tories should ditch BBC licence fee, Greg Dyke panel suggests

Also DS News: Dyke: Tories should scrap BBC licence fee

[mad_dude]

BBC Criticise tories, BBC lose funding that is how the new funding model would work.

[slow motion]

Well i'd like to see the £123 million spent on collection annually be spent on better things.

Isn't that about the budget of CBBC, Cbeebies and BBC Three combined, spent just on collection?

[Chparmar]

We all know that the BBC is not free of governmental influence at all. Especially evident over the last year or so. Might as well scrap the License fee and fund it out of general taxation.

[tedjrr]

It may be something that a Cameron administration would want or seek to do, but seems unlikely that their priorities will be cut that way.

Isn't there a further issue, that of the BBC Trust. The Tories have stated a belief that the Trust/Corporation model is inadequate for regulatory purposes. If direct funding from general taxation (ie from the Consolidated Fund) were used to finance the BBC, then some sort of accountable body would have to sit between the Government/Parliament and the BBC, somewhat like the Arts Council does for the performing arts. Perhaps this might be an even-more-arms-length BBC Trust , even with responsibility for funding other PSO broadcasting, but not for management oversight of the BBC?

The other issue is one of the period of grant awards. The Treasury (hence Parliament via the Finance Act) would have to commit funds for longer than the usual annual budget given to Government Departments, which they don't like although this is actually done in the case of defence contracts and rail franchises, etc.

[mad_dude]

Well i'd like to see the £123 million spent on collection annually be spent on better things.

Isn't that about the budget of CBBC, Cbeebies and BBC Three combined, spent just on collection

If it compromises the BBC's impartiality, no.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by mad_dude

If it compromises the BBC's impartiality, no.

Why would it any more than it is already?

Reality of the money flow is thus-

Licence fee-->BBC-->Treasury-->BBC

The BBC currently collects the licence fee on behalf of the government, the government then decides how much the BBC should have back. Conventionally, this has been pretty much all of it, but there are no reasons why this should be the case.

If a future government decided 75% of the licence fee should go to fund parliament TV and C4, it could, and the BBC could do little about it, other than complain.

Providing the BBC stays editorially independent, there's no real difference, other than removing the cost of collection and negative publicity from the licence fee. Plus Capita's contract expires either 2010 or 2012, so could be a good time to make a change.

And in other news, minor victory it seems-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...asterChef.html

Eels off the menu on BBC's MasterChef

Damn right you murderers!

[Chparmar]

Dyke and the Tories will get their way; simply because people will eventually move from antenna/cable reception to broadband.
Even if Broadband tax was introduced to fund the BBC, I see very little difference between that and general taxation.

[u006852]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Why would it any more than it is already?

Reality of the money flow is thus-

Licence fee-->BBC-->Treasury-->BBC

The BBC currently collects the licence fee on behalf of the government, the government then decides how much the BBC should have back. Conventionally, this has been pretty much all of it, but there are no reasons why this should be the case.

If a future government decided 75% of the licence fee should go to fund parliament TV and C4, it could, and the BBC could do little about it, other than complain.

Providing the BBC stays editorially independent, there's no real difference, other than removing the cost of collection and negative publicity from the licence fee. Plus Capita's contract expires either 2010 or 2012, so could be a good time to make a change.

And in other news, minor victory it seems-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...asterChef.html

Eels off the menu on BBC's MasterChef

Damn right you murderers!

mmmm....not sure I 100% agree with that.

Although I am "in principle" for funding through general taxation I am worried this will bring the BBC under further influence from the government.

With the current arrangements, although possibly the governement have final say, I do believe they are held at arms length.

The last charter was reviewed by a select commitee for example and there is the BBC trust acting in the publics interest. (please don't someone jump on that comment about the trust, whatever you may believe that is the intention)

With the Conservatives declaring they want to get rid of quangos etc and want to bring things back under direct government control, how would that apply to the BBC?

Cameron recently advocated reducing the LF. It got bounced by a vote in parliament.

How would it work if the Tories are in power?

Minister X for media just decides the funding will be cut? Will that go before parliament or independant review?

If it doesn't that will definitely mean the government of the day will have more influence over the BBCs output.

...not to mention the problems of idiot politicians making bad politically motivated decisions regarding said funding.

....remember when the interest rates were controlled by the government?

[hendero]

Originally Posted by u006852

mmmm....not sure I 100% agree with that.

Although I am "in principle" for funding through general taxation I am worried this will bring the BBC under further influence from the government.

With the current arrangements, although possibly the governement have final say, I do believe they are held at arms length.

The last charter was reviewed by a select commitee for example and there is the BBC trust acting in the publics interest. (please don't someone jump on that comment about the trust, whatever you may believe that is the intention)

With the Conservatives declaring they want to get rid of quangos etc and want to bring things back under direct government control, how would that apply to the BBC?

Cameron recently advocated reducing the LF. It got bounced by a vote in parliament.

How would it work if the Tories are in power?

Minister X for media just decides the funding will be cut? Will that go before parliament or independant review?

If it doesn't that will definitely mean the government of the day will have more influence over the BBCs output.

They could remove any worries about government influence by making it a commercial channel. Which I appreciate could lead to other issues, but it would address this particular concern.

[u006852]

Originally Posted by hendero

They could remove any worries about government influence by making it a commercial channel. Which I appreciate could lead to other issues, but it would address this particular concern.

Oh FFS! Please give it up.

We have discussed that point a million times before.

No one thinks commercialisation would work, the BBC couldn't do PSB and ther isn't the ad revenue to support it.

Or did you miss that quote I posted from ITV about this very subject where they said it would destroy their income.

[Chparmar]

Originally Posted by u006852

Oh FFS! Please give it up.

We have discussed that point a million times before.

No one thinks commercialisation would work, the BBC couldn't do PSB and ther isn't the ad revenue to support it.

Or did you miss that quote I posted from ITV about this very subject where they said it would destroy their income.

But the BBC is funded part commercialisation already with all the "Worldwide" channels, including UKTV. And I am certainly seeing no decrease in LF spending or giving!

Maybe radical options while reducing public funds could be looked into. Like a introduction of Broadband Tax and offering viewers to pay for BBC iplayer content. Another option could be the commercialization BBC 1 and 2's prime time hours. (after all Strictly Come Dancing and the Apprentice works well in the US)

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by u006852

Although I am "in principle" for funding through general taxation I am worried this will bring the BBC under further influence from the government.

Dyke's departure should have demonstrated how much influence the government can have over the BBC.

With the Conservatives declaring they want to get rid of quangos etc and want to bring things back under direct government control, how would that apply to the BBC?

Report to the DCMS.

Cameron recently advocated reducing the LF. It got bounced by a vote in parliament.

The annual SI setting the licence fee could get bounced by a vote in parliament, it's only convention that tends to let SI's pass unopposed.

How would it work if the Tories are in power?

Minister X for media just decides the funding will be cut? Will that go before parliament or independant review?

The same way it did when Labour were in power, and semi-cut the BBC's funding. Ok, some semantics there but the BBC didn't get the increase it wanted, the RPI+ formula was ended and the BBC was lumbered with 2 politically motivated costs, DSO and Manchester.

If it doesn't that will definitely mean the government of the day will have more influence over the BBCs output.

Only if we allow it and don't object. Or, the government already has a lot of influence over the BBC's output via the quotas imposed. The important thing to protect and limit is editorial influence.

....remember when the interest rates were controlled by the government?

I remember when the currency printing presses are controlled by the government. It's a trust thing, the government is supposed to represent us. If we can't trust them, then so much for democracy.

[Cantank]

I think the title should read "The Conservatives should scrap BBC."

(Cue all the whining from those who expect others to pay for their trivial entertainment programmes and left-of-centre propaganda instead of funding their own leisure choices.)

[u006852]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Dyke's departure should have demonstrated how much influence the government can have over the BBC.

.

Not at all, the information was presented for all of us to make our own minds up about. They didn't stop reporting the situation.

It was abundantly clear the government were trying to cover the story up.

Dykes departure just showed up the goverments intentions.

Who came out on top in this particular example?

It certainly was not the government.

So, do you think the situation will be improved or worsened if a governement minister could directly control the BBCs funding without addres to parliament or some kind of independant review?

[u006852]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Only if we allow it and don't object. Or, the government already has a lot of influence over the BBC's output via the quotas imposed. The important thing to protect and limit is editorial influence.



.

OK, how do propose to stop the government do exactly as they please?

Yes some of your suggestions could protect the BBC but thats all I am looking for, a method to minimise influence from idiot politicians of any party.

That does require them to not have direct control over funding. It needs to be independantly scrutinised.

BTW the current quotas are irrelevant to editorial/funding issues. They are to fulfill a PSB remit, not to further a governments political objectives.

[loyalsince]

I think this idea is good. The licence fee is a regressive tax, as everyone virtually owns a tv all pay anyway, there can be no avoidance and it cuts down on bureaucracy with more spending on programmes

[mad_dude]

Thw license fee gives the BBC a guranteed level of income. Whereas if the money came out of general taxation the goverment can raise and lower it as they wish.. Furthermore I find it very hippocritical that those that complain that they shouldnt have to fund the BBC because they dont watch it believe that those that dont even have the means to watch it (IE a TV) should have to fund it.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by u006852

Not at all, the information was presented for all of us to make our own minds up about. They didn't stop reporting the situation.

Misses the point. The government very much interfered with the BBC by removing the DG, and then abolishing the Governors and replacing them with the Trust.

So, do you think the situation will be improved or worsened if a governement minister could directly control the BBCs funding without addres to parliament or some kind of independant review?

It can already. The BBC asks the DCMS for money, the DCMS asks the Treasury, the BBC's funding gets included in an Appropriation Act submitted to parliament. The licence fee is set seperately via SI submitted to paliament. The media select committee reviews the BBC, as does Ofcom.

OK, how do propose to stop the government do exactly as they please?

The same way we do today, via our democratic process and via the media. Ok, this doesn't always stop the government doing what it wants as the current shambles regarding drugs policy shows.

Yes some of your suggestions could protect the BBC but thats all I am looking for, a method to minimise influence from idiot politicians of any party.

That's democracy for you. We only get the idiots we elect.

BTW the current quotas are irrelevant to editorial/funding issues. They are to fulfill a PSB remit, not to further a governments political objectives.

What's the difference? The quotas set amounts of programming by genre, and those are set by the government in the BBC's Framework Agreement to meet the governments policy for PSB.

Again, it's more about editorial influence.

[zz9]

I'm in favour. As long as there are measures to keep the BBC at least as impartial as it is now and that the income level can ge guaranteed at least a few years in advance and not subject to chopping and changing each year.

As well as the £100+ million saved in collection costs it would also eliminate the £100+ million lost in evaders and be fairer for the low paid.

[Charnham]

why not give the money spent on admin to the BBC? why should we give money to private company's?

[u006852]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Misses the point. The government very much interfered with the BBC by removing the DG, and then abolishing the Governors and replacing them with the Trust.

It can already. The BBC asks the DCMS for money, the DCMS asks the Treasury, the BBC's funding gets included in an Appropriation Act submitted to parliament. The licence fee is set seperately via SI submitted to paliament. The media select committee reviews the BBC, as does Ofcom.


.

It doesn't miss the point, their interference was plain to see, didn't affect editorial content and hasn't since. Are the trust agreeing with the government/tories?

People make claims about BBCs editorial independance but when you ask for examples..........

I actually asked if you thought the situation will be improved or worsened if a government minister could directly control the BBCs funding without address to parliament or some kind of independant review.

The tories may do this, they may not.

That is my concern. Otherwise I am "in principle" in favour.

[SuperTed187]

FFS lets just give it to Rupert Murdoch shall we?

[u006852]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

The same way we do today, via our democratic process and via the media. Ok, this doesn't always stop the government doing what it wants as the current shambles regarding drugs policy shows.

That's democracy for you. We only get the idiots we elect.

.

Unfortunately that is a far larger debate and beyond the scope of this thread, so I won't continue the discussion further here but to say I am personally extremely concerned about the effectiveness of democracy in this country.

Tipified by the on going, gradual, slice by slice, transfer of government into a undemocratic, unaccountable and effectively unelected federal European state.

[u006852]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

What's the difference? The quotas set amounts of programming by genre, and those are set by the government in the BBC's Framework Agreement to meet the governments policy for PSB.

Again, it's more about editorial influence.

So are those quotas against the publics interest? Are they influenced by the trust/BBC/DCMS?

Or are they directly controlled by a government minister?

It's not just about editorial influence at all.

Funding control is also extremely important.