What's the anticipated growth of housing over the next 6 years? The freeze in the LF doesn't equal a freeze in BBC income, if there's a couple of % of housing growth a year...
K
The government are putting half a million public sector workers out of a job tomorrow. Not likely to stimulate growth in the housing market.
How can it be good news for TV Licence payers to be subsidising the rich even more?
The World Service was funded from general taxation. That means those with more income paid more in to it, like all other parts of the civil service. And some people paid zero.
Now everyone will pay the same for a service provided for the betterment of the UK as a whole, the World Service being an important propaganda tool for the UK.
Of course the TVL freeze will offset that to a degree, but the amount of programming made for the UK will significantly decrease while the cost of it all will hardly budge.
I assume it's good because the BBC will effectively have less money, and so be brought down a peg or two.
And for many, it seems that's far more important than the fact that it will likely be to the detriment of the majority.
Iain
No, the BBC has been overweight and needs to slim - it will end up fitter in the next few years. But like with most obese people it's difficult telling them that they need to be careful and exercise more.
No, the BBC has been overweight and needs to slim - it will end up fitter in the next few years. But like with most obese people it's difficult telling them that they need to be careful and exercise more.
Then be honest about it and cut the license fee rather than this rubbish about forcing the BBC to pay for things out of the license fee that the license fee IS NOT intended to fund.
The 6 year freeze = approx a 12% real terms cut if we assume inflation of 2%. But inflation is currently just over 3%. So is the "16%" an estimate of this allowing for higher inflation?
It is reported that the extra costs taken on by the BBC (ie World Service, S4C + other bits) are £340m. That is very close to 10% of current LF income.
So at an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM the total real terms cut has to be 22% (ie 12 + 10).
And it could be more like 25% or 26% if inflation does not come down to 2% quickly.
Yet the "media" appear to have got hold of this 16% figure and are running with it????????
Then be honest about it and cut the license fee rather than this rubbish about forcing the BBC to pay for things out of the license fee that the license fee IS NOT intended to fund.
The BBC has just wormed itself out of subsidising the over 75s - I'd call that reneging on a commitment.
Agree with Ben. If the license fee had been cut £20 a year it would be far more honest then what's happened here. Now people are going to see large amounts of programmes disappearing or made on the cheap, while still paying the same license fee - making it look like the BBC is even worse value for money.
The BBC never had any responsibility to pay license fee for over 75's. That was a Labour plan to avoid having to put up pensions. But I think you must know that already Solenoid.
The BBC has just wormed itself out of subsidising the over 75s - I'd call that reneging on a commitment.
How is that reneging out of something? The BBC never pledged to start covering this cost. This is something that the government promised and will continue to fulfil as it is a benefit (I dont think they will scrap it).
The BBC has just wormed itself out of subsidising the over 75s - I'd call that reneging on a commitment.
It was never the responsibility of the BBC to pay for free over 75's Licences. If the Government thinks that policy is no longer affordable, then it should be honest and scrap it or bring in means testing. Indeed the Tories should not have went into the election promising to continue supporting this policy it if it was no longer affordable.
No, the BBC has been overweight and needs to slim - it will end up fitter in the next few years. But like with most obese people it's difficult telling them that they need to be careful and exercise more.
Nobody is mentioning that none of the World service or S4C costs will be absorbed by the BBC til 2015 effectively at the end of the licence fee freeze.
Nobody is mentioning that none of the World service or S4C costs will be absorbed by the BBC til 2015 effectively at the end of the licence fee freeze.
I wonder if the BBC are banking on Labour being back in government by 2015 as they are more likely to raise the licence fee to help cover the costs of the World Service/SC4/Monitoring Service.
I wonder if the BBC are banking on Labour being back in government by 2015 as they are more likely to raise the licence fee to help cover the costs of the World Service/SC4/Monitoring Service.
No it is a period of adjustment to allow the BBC to get sensible cost management in place.
The BBC has just wormed itself out of subsidising the over 75s - I'd call that reneging on a commitment.
It was a Labour Govt. idea and nothing to do with the BBC. Therefore please explain how anyone can 'reneg' on something they never agreed to in the first place
Nobody is mentioning that none of the World service or S4C costs will be absorbed by the BBC til 2015 effectively at the end of the licence fee freeze.
No, that's not right.
"In total, the BBC has committed to spend an extra £340m of licence-fee money to fund all these undertakings by 2014-15." - ie World service, S4C + other bits.
Now the Licence Fee is frozen till 31 March 2017.
So the BBC will be funding the World Service etc for 3 complete years before any possible Licence Fee rise.
The reason it's a bit backloaded is the costs of adjustment - there are going to be lots of job losses so BBC will have redundancy costs in the early years (already kicked-off with Byford going with a 2 year pay-off).
NB. Note that the last LF rise was April 2010 and the next (possible) rise is April 2017.
So depending on use of English it could be considered a 7 year freeze - but there will be 6 annual reviews when it remains frozen, ie 2011, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
So World Service, S4C etc cost starts in year 5 out of 7.
Nobody is mentioning that none of the World service or S4C costs will be absorbed by the BBC til 2015 effectively at the end of the licence fee freeze.
People here seldom let facts get in the way of reason, or excuses to blame Murdoch.
Some postives though. S4C's spending will be reigned in. Bigger one is the BBC is more obviously the state broadcaster and can thus keep it's exemptions from EU competition law, which given the BBC's commercial expansion was a greater potential risk. It may have to curtail some of those activities, it may choose not to.
BBC itself still doesn't get it. From it's PR dept-
"The good thing about the licence fee is that, because it is collected from everyone, it doesn't have to be populist," says Pettie.
It isn't collected from me because I think the BBC has become too populist because after all, to maintain the lifestyle to which it's become accustomed, it has to sell subscriptions to as many people as it can. By being 'populist', it counters accusations that it was elitist that had been made against it years ago. If it's not 'populist', more pepole may ask why theyre forced to fund it.
The BBC and the government missed a trick to bring BBC funding under taxation, which would remove those challenges. But then the government can't afford the BBC in it's present form and in the current economic climate.
(now back to Spooks subtitling, and pondering the meaning of 'the bomb has been diffused'. Least a Murdoch makes some money out of that one.)
Comments
When this happens, please remember where you read it first
How can it be good news for TV Licence payers to be subsidising the rich even more?
The World Service was funded from general taxation. That means those with more income paid more in to it, like all other parts of the civil service. And some people paid zero.
Now everyone will pay the same for a service provided for the betterment of the UK as a whole, the World Service being an important propaganda tool for the UK.
Of course the TVL freeze will offset that to a degree, but the amount of programming made for the UK will significantly decrease while the cost of it all will hardly budge.
And for many, it seems that's far more important than the fact that it will likely be to the detriment of the majority.
Iain
No, the BBC has been overweight and needs to slim - it will end up fitter in the next few years. But like with most obese people it's difficult telling them that they need to be careful and exercise more.
Then be honest about it and cut the license fee rather than this rubbish about forcing the BBC to pay for things out of the license fee that the license fee IS NOT intended to fund.
Where does this figure come from?
The 6 year freeze = approx a 12% real terms cut if we assume inflation of 2%. But inflation is currently just over 3%. So is the "16%" an estimate of this allowing for higher inflation?
It is reported that the extra costs taken on by the BBC (ie World Service, S4C + other bits) are £340m. That is very close to 10% of current LF income.
So at an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM the total real terms cut has to be 22% (ie 12 + 10).
And it could be more like 25% or 26% if inflation does not come down to 2% quickly.
Yet the "media" appear to have got hold of this 16% figure and are running with it????????
The BBC has just wormed itself out of subsidising the over 75s - I'd call that reneging on a commitment.
The BBC never had any responsibility to pay license fee for over 75's. That was a Labour plan to avoid having to put up pensions. But I think you must know that already Solenoid.
The over 75s thing didn't even exist 5 years ago and its a silly poorly thought out benefit anyway
How is that reneging out of something? The BBC never pledged to start covering this cost. This is something that the government promised and will continue to fulfil as it is a benefit (I dont think they will scrap it).
It was never the responsibility of the BBC to pay for free over 75's Licences. If the Government thinks that policy is no longer affordable, then it should be honest and scrap it or bring in means testing. Indeed the Tories should not have went into the election promising to continue supporting this policy it if it was no longer affordable.
do you have a cliche free version of that post?
Iain
I wonder if the BBC are banking on Labour being back in government by 2015 as they are more likely to raise the licence fee to help cover the costs of the World Service/SC4/Monitoring Service.
No it is a period of adjustment to allow the BBC to get sensible cost management in place.
Cliches are the only things people understand these days.:cool:
Nobody in England gives a damn about S4C!
No, that's not right.
"In total, the BBC has committed to spend an extra £340m of licence-fee money to fund all these undertakings by 2014-15." - ie World service, S4C + other bits.
Now the Licence Fee is frozen till 31 March 2017.
So the BBC will be funding the World Service etc for 3 complete years before any possible Licence Fee rise.
The reason it's a bit backloaded is the costs of adjustment - there are going to be lots of job losses so BBC will have redundancy costs in the early years (already kicked-off with Byford going with a 2 year pay-off).
NB. Note that the last LF rise was April 2010 and the next (possible) rise is April 2017.
So depending on use of English it could be considered a 7 year freeze - but there will be 6 annual reviews when it remains frozen, ie 2011, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
So World Service, S4C etc cost starts in year 5 out of 7.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/19/bbc-licence-fee-frozen
People here seldom let facts get in the way of reason, or excuses to blame Murdoch.
Some postives though. S4C's spending will be reigned in. Bigger one is the BBC is more obviously the state broadcaster and can thus keep it's exemptions from EU competition law, which given the BBC's commercial expansion was a greater potential risk. It may have to curtail some of those activities, it may choose not to.
BBC itself still doesn't get it. From it's PR dept-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10839629
What are the negatives of the proposed changes?
"The good thing about the licence fee is that, because it is collected from everyone, it doesn't have to be populist," says Pettie.
It isn't collected from me because I think the BBC has become too populist because after all, to maintain the lifestyle to which it's become accustomed, it has to sell subscriptions to as many people as it can. By being 'populist', it counters accusations that it was elitist that had been made against it years ago. If it's not 'populist', more pepole may ask why theyre forced to fund it.
The BBC and the government missed a trick to bring BBC funding under taxation, which would remove those challenges. But then the government can't afford the BBC in it's present form and in the current economic climate.
(now back to Spooks subtitling, and pondering the meaning of 'the bomb has been diffused'. Least a Murdoch makes some money out of that one.)
Hate the licence fee, love the BBC