To think it's a terrible idea to scrap the BBC licence fee?

[dellacucina]

Inspired by this article: www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1242927/BBC-News-Boris-Johnson-license-fee-subscription-British-Broadcasting-Corporation/amp

I'm recently naturalised and I think that the BBC is part of what makes Britain special. It makes me very sad indeed to imagine it being cut down.

@larrygrylls what measurement are you using? Land size UK isn't 7th, population it isn't 7th, we also aren't the 7th richest. Just wondering

@larrygrylls if you can't see a distinction between (1) wanting an option that is free from commercial influence and (2) wanting an option that is controlled by experts, there is truly nothing more we have to say to each other

What do you think the significance is of the majority of posters being pro BBC but the vote being 2:1 against?

I think it speaks to the lack of respect certain well educated people have for the ‘masses’. They want the BBC because of the ‘high’ culture and propounding of their views, but they want others to help pay for it.

Soover,

We are the seventh richest by GDP, unless I am mistaken..

I think the significance is that people don't value public institutions and are essentially selfish. Some people might be hard up for money and/or see this as a regressive tax given that it disproportionately impacts poorer people, which I can see is potentially a problem.

They want the BBC because of the ‘high’ culture and propounding of their views

So on one hand the anti-BBC posters say there's nothing on but Wanted Down Under and Eastenders, on the other it's nothing but high culture. Pick a story, guys.

Della,

I am sorry but I think you are the selfish one (although I will give you credit for at least recognising the regressive taxation nature of the licence fee).

People who are struggling to pay for food for their families have to pay for entertainment that they have no say in.

Most of BBC is really in no sense public service, it is entertainment. And the BBC have in many key debates been found to be biased in their core mission.

Why should people value this ‘institution’? What should they be valuing?

@larrygrylls please explain how I am selfish based on the discussions here

(I will admit that I am selfish in that I don't want the UK to turn into US lite)

Della,

I don’t think you are personally selfish any more than anyone else who feels that the BBC should be subsidised. I think most who defend the BBC enjoy some of its content but are not prepared to pay the cost of it being a subscription service.

To me the BBC is a bit like a restaurant tax in that anyone who ever eats out is obliged to pay a flat tax and that tax provides a subsidy to make expensive food (and pay vast salaries to celebrity chefs) that the majority don’t even enjoy.

Nope, I could afford to pay for a subscription service and I gladly would. I think it offers a public benefit

The terrifying thing is, with people so obsessed with consumer choice and thinking they always know what is best for them and their families, I think very soon we will be having this conversation about education...

@larrygryllsLarry according to IMF, World Bank and CIA (!) we are 9th. And I'm certain about to go down dramatically but that's a whole other thread.

So on one hand the anti-BBC posters say there's nothing on but Wanted Down Under and Eastenders, on the other it's nothing but high culture. Pick a story, guys.

So all the different posters are supposed to pick a single story and stick with it?

The BBC's offerings are neither uniquely nor uniformly high-brow - so long as one has a smart TV, alternate options approach the infinite. The BBC has, in the past, made it possible for people to access culture, news and entertainment in an easy way but technology has long since crept in eroded the value of its offering.

You can make the case that there's value in a non-commercial news outlet, but this could be managed via a government grant and supplemented by voluntary public support like PBS or NPR in the US.

Della,

I don’t doubt that you could easily afford to pay. I think the vast majority who ‘value’ the BBC see it as the cost of a ‘meal out for two’. Those who have tougher choices value it less.

I think that, if you love the BBC you should pay the £500-1,000 subscription fee (based in 1/5 to 1/10 subscribing voluntarily). I think, however, that were it a subscription service, you would demand far more from it for your fee.

as with all services which I feel should be universal eg telephone, gas, electricity ( or whatever renewable we move into) , buses, trains, roads, water, health, education, schools etc etc I think we should simply pay more tax. Tax the rich more and properly tax companies eg amazon who make millions from consumers. But then, I'm a socialist and thunk these are basic rights .

Soover,

Are you talking nominal or ppp?

It seems like there are two separate arguments going on here:

1. whether the BBC/other channels should receive public funding at all and whether there is a benefit to public service broadcasting; and

2. whether (if it is accepted that some public funding is necessary) the current licence fee is the fairest and most effective way to fund that, as a tax on live television viewing which increasingly few people actually do, or whether there is a better way to arrange this funding.

It is fully possible to think that public funding is necessary and that the licence fee may no longer be the best way to do so.

Nope, I could afford to pay for a subscription service and I gladly would. I think it offers a public benefit

But you don't get to decide that for everyone else. If you like it, you pay for it, but don't make Joe Bloggs and Jane Smith pay to subsidise your choices. That's selfish. I wouldn't expect you to subsidise my desire to watch MTV, for example.

The BBC is an entertainment service. It's no more valuable than Channel 4, Sky, ITV or any other entertainment network out there. Just because it's been around for a while and has no adverts, doesn't mean it's better than any other service.

PPP

Soover,

Yes but higher nominally. Either way we are globally a huge economy, just not one of the mega economies.

Cbeebies with adverts would be a great loss to humanity

I wouldn't mind subscription to keep it advert free.

@adaline I once again refer you to my previous message setting out what I believe to be the public benefits of public broadcasting

I once again refer you to my previous message setting out what I believe to be the public benefits of public broadcasting

But again, that's YOUR belief. It's not fair to make people pay £150 a year for an entertainment service they don't care about or use, just so they can watch other, non-subsidised channels.

@SafetyLightsAreForDudes yes, these are two separate issues but almost all of the arguments against seem go to the basic point that many people don't value publicly funded broadcasting so this is the direction the conversation seems to have gone.