BBC

[Deleted member 15344]

Problem here is that it's not one or the other. And this is the rub for many.

If I choose to pay private health care (which I do via my ltd co) I still have to pay taxes that fund the NHS regardless as to whether I will use it or not. So paying twice.

BBC is the same. This is not a "BBC Good/BBC Bad" post, I don't care either way. But I am in favour of people having choices and one of those choices is whether to pay for the BBC as a service.

If people could choose to pay for the BBC or indeed the NHS etc how many people do you think will “opt out” as such

And with people opting out that imo would mean a significant reduction in revenue for the broadcaster which would in turn mean increases in costs and it becomes a vicious circle and we end up with millions missing out because they don’t have the ability to pay for the subscription services

I alluded to it in another post - the impact of removing the license fee whilst it may suit some who don’t want to pay it ( but still have a benefit of the bbc services ) there will be millions who need it

 

[RichA]

I pay subscriptions for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Audible and piggyback my BiL's SkyGo account for the cricket and occasional live Premier League match.
I don't feel like we consume a lot of BBC output, until I really think about it, when I realise that we're probably getting reasonable value for money in comparison. MrsA watches Sewing Bee and Strictly, we both watch plenty of comedy and documentaries and would struggle without MotD and coverage of major football tournaments and Olympics. Then there's TMS and Liza Tarbuck on the radio. And the BBC Sport app and website.
I grew up in a BBC only household and it retains a lot of credit in my mind for Monty Python, The Two Ronnies, Blackadder, Not The 9 O'Clock News, Comic Strip Presents and countless other era defining comedies.
It's pretty much just the BBC News that I have a problem with and that's only since some of its presenters were given too much editorial opinion for my taste.

 

[GreiginFife]

If people could choose to pay for the BBC or indeed the NHS etc how many people do you think will “opt out” as such

And with people opting out that imo would mean a significant reduction in revenue for the broadcaster which would in turn mean increases in costs and it becomes a vicious circle and we end up with millions missing out because they don’t have the ability to pay for the subscription services

I alluded to it in another post - the impact of removing the license fee whilst it may suit some who don’t want to pay it ( but still have a benefit of the bbc services ) there will be millions who need it

This is absolutely the nature of choice though. If the product is strong and good enough it will stand on it's own feet as more people would "opt-in" - choose to pay.

If the product isn't competitive then it won't. But it shouldn't survive on the basis that it "can't fail" due to an enforced funding model.

Let it stand on it's own feet, just like almost every other corporation out there.

I understand you feel strongly on this, as do many others (from both sides of the divide) but they're just opinions.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

This is absolutely the nature of choice though. If the product is strong and good enough it will stand on it's own feet as more people would "opt-in" - choose to pay.

If the product isn't competitive then it won't. But it shouldn't survive on the basis that it "can't fail" due to an enforced funding model.

Let it stand on it's own feet, just like almost every other corporation out there.

I understand you feel strongly on this, as do many others (from both sides of the divide) but they're just opinions.

It is just about opinions

If it has to stand on its own two feet and still produce the same level of content that it does now then that subscription cost would rise dramatically pricing out many people - it’s very competitive and outstanding value at £150 a year

There is not a chance it could afford to produce what it does on £150 a year if people were given the choice.

Thankfully at the moment it’s still a public service like the NHS but I do worry for the day when we become more like the US and lose more public services

 

[cliveb]

You've exactly hit the nail on the head, couldn't agree more. However, I do pay more to go elsewhere privately, but I'm still forced to pay for something I don't want.... So I can watch the things I do want.

For me, it should be a choice.... I would happily give up all BBC services if the choice was given to me.

Do you believe that if somebody only ever uses private health care they shouldn't be expected to pay that part of their taxes that funds the NHS?

 

[GreiginFife]

It is just about opinions

If it has to stand on its own two feet and still produce the same level of content that it does now then that subscription cost would rise dramatically pricing out many people - it’s very competitive and outstanding value at £150 a year

There is not a chance it could afford to produce what it does on £150 a year if people were given the choice.

Thankfully at the moment it’s still a public service like the NHS but I do worry for the day when we become more like the US and lose more public services

This day will come sooner than we'd like IMO. Civilisation is changing, as it always does and technology is driving the change faster than it has ever happened

The concept of what is and isn't value for money is so subjective.

The BBC also has the option to become a commercial enterprise should the need arise. The revenue that could be driven by advertising would potentially dwarf license income IF the need arose.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And a similar argument goes about private healthcare insurance and increased NHS funding. So in that I’d suggest that those who think that a (even in part) privatised healthcare system is the way to go should go get a quote for private healthcare insurance with pre-existing conditions covered….then consider the cost against the cost of all contributing a bit more for the common weal. And then further understand what the private sector covers and when it says ‘over to you NHS, what comes next we don’t do (as it’s not cost effective and profitable enough for us)’.

When I retired we kept going for my wife the Heath insurance my company had provided as the insurer was willing to cover pre-existing conditions including her cancer (in remission) - some will not provide such cover.

The premium? £252 a month….and that comes off her bottom line and so after tax and NI.

We have Sky and Netflix and much, if not most, of my viewing is through these channels and YouTube. But I have no issues whatsoever paying the BBC licence fee because just as many could not afford any form of private healthcare insurance and so depend upon the NHS, many depend upon the terrestrial channels and would struggle to afford a subscription version of the licence fee, and many superb non-TV BBC output would be lost.

 

[TimShady]

Remember we pay for the NHS by taxes for everyone, not for ourselves. We should never be able to opt out of funding the NHS via our taxes just because we won’t use the NHS ourselves. The same way I pay taxes to support education even though I have no children.

 

[Swango1980]

In relation to the BBC and reluctance for some to pay a license, it may not just be to do with what you want to do as an individual, but does it benefit others much more within the general population? If only those people paid, they may not get all the services they make use of unless they pay vastly more, more than they can afford. But, as most of us have to pay the license fee, then it benefits the nation as a whole.

Not just thinking of the adult population either. As a kid growing up, BBC was huge for me. I wouldn't watch what my parents would watch (they were not into sport at all, not really into much TV at all). I'd watch all the children's programs (after school, like Grange Hill / Blue Peter / Byker Grove / etc). I religiously watched MOTD as I reached the end of my primary school years, and it is what got me hooked on football. I'd watch Wimbledon every year, and then for at least 2 or 3 weeks after I'd be out playing tennis every day with my mates. I'd imagine the BBC played a pretty important role in my life. Had my parents not had Sky (which they never ever did) or the BBC, I wonder what the alternative would have been. Or at least in todays money? Grow up on Netflix (if they had a subscription), or watch youTube all day? Would free view channels with advertising be as influential? Would they be more likely to have an agenda, with no need to even try to be neutral?

To be fair, I'm not sure how things could be better or worse without the BBC, but I'm not overly positive things would be better generally. I think it is a very good service, and I've no issue paying for it, even if I get much less usage out of it than others (and I still use it a reasonable amount, the BBC website is the first place I go to to see the news and sport, and I still watch MOTD and other BBC programs)

 

[WGCRider]

My biggest gripe on BBC news is the way they have to bend over backwards to show balance even when when side of the argument is clearly bonkers. Ok that’s subjective but there are instances where it’s so clear that it’s actually cringeworthy watching some presenter trying to argue the opposite.
So I find it hard to see where the complaints of “opinion” come into it - quite the contrary I’d say.

I think this is fair - trying to show "balance" in every argument is crazy. Take something like climate change this is not a 50/50 discussion that needs balance. Balance would be 99/1.

That said one of my most strongly held opinions is that people who think the BBC news is biased are utter loons. I'd state as a fact that there is no more unbiased source of news on the planet than BBC news.

 

[LincolnShep]

I grew up in a BBC only household and it retains a lot of credit in my mind for Monty Python, The Two Ronnies, Blackadder, Not The 9 O'Clock News, Comic Strip Presents and countless other era defining comedies.

I like your list but Comic Strip Presents was created by and broadcast by Channel 4. They moved to BBC briefly but then went back to C4.

 

[Deleted member 18121]

Do you believe that if somebody only ever uses private health care they shouldn't be expected to pay that part of their taxes that funds the NHS?

The NHS is a different beast to the BBC and isn't comparable, the NHS doesn't try sway people's opinions on subjects or misreport things as "facts" by cherry picking it's sources.

The NHS is about health and wellbeing of the nation, the BBC is entertainment.

My own opinion on the NHS though is that the "wealthy" or those who have private healthcare should still contribute to the NHS but could ease the burden on the NHS by being treated privately.

I don't see an issue with the wealthy contributing to the health of those who cannot afford it, but I don't think they should contribute to an entertainment company if they had the choice not to.

 

[Mudball]

You've exactly hit the nail on the head, couldn't agree more. However, I do pay more to go elsewhere privately, but I'm still forced to pay for something I don't want.... So I can watch the things I do want.

For me, it should be a choice.... I would happily give up all BBC services if the choice was given to me.

If everyone only paid just for their own services, there will be no funding for any Universal services. Some of the things are fine, but not everything. You can stretch the argument ...
1) You can pay private healthcare, but your tax pays for NHS. If you choose not to pay your tax, then there wont be any public service NHS. Next time you need an ambulance, keep your insurance papers ready. This is the American Dream
2) defunding the BBC means no regional programs, no upcoming local artists on sounds, no language translations, no bbc events, no Attenborough, Cox etc.
3) We tried the railway model, where in those not using the railways no longer pay for it, but users pay top $ for a very basic service. Same for buses
4) You can put your kids in pvt school, but your tax pays for state schools. Should you stop universal access to education because you can afford private schooling. Atleast one party is threatening to impose VAT on school fees, so if they become unaffordable, will we see more competition in state school.
5) Should we defund the police, the army etc just because we havent used it for personal use.
6) Why should we donate to food banks or charities like Save the Children... as I already pay taxes

If we are an individual-centric society, then all the arguments are fine, but we are not. Despite paying private fees, we depend on public services so that others can access + we can use them in emergency. I am not leaning to the left suddenly, but i get tired of the same thing going around.

Now off my soapbox and I am sure someone will report me.

 

[cliveb]

The NHS is a different beast to the BBC and isn't comparable, the NHS doesn't try sway people's opinions on subjects or misreport things as "facts" by cherry picking it's sources.

The NHS is about health and wellbeing of the nation, the BBC is entertainment.

My own opinion on the NHS though is that the "wealthy" or those who have private healthcare should still contribute to the NHS but could ease the burden on the NHS by being treated privately.

I don't see an issue with the wealthy contributing to the health of those who cannot afford it, but I don't think they should contribute to an entertainment company if they had the choice not to.

My question was intended to make people think about whether institutions that are beneficial to society as a whole should be funded by all, even those who don't make use of the service.

I personally feel that the BBC is such an institution and should be supported by all, probably through general taxation.

You appear to believe it has some kind of agenda to misinform, but many would disagree.
The fact that the left think it's a puppet of the establishment while the right think it's some kind of left wing mouthpiece would seem to suggest that it is actually fairly well balanced.

 

[TimShady]

If everyone only paid just for their own services, there will be no funding for any Universal services. Some of the things are fine, but not everything. You can stretch the argument ...
1) You can pay private healthcare, but your tax pays for NHS. If you choose not to pay your tax, then there wont be any public service NHS. Next time you need an ambulance, keep your insurance papers ready. This is the American Dream
2) defunding the BBC means no regional programs, no upcoming local artists on sounds, no language translations, no bbc events, no Attenborough, Cox etc.
3) We tried the railway model, where in those not using the railways no longer pay for it, but users pay top $ for a very basic service. Same for buses
4) You can put your kids in pvt school, but your tax pays for state schools. Should you stop universal access to education because you can afford private schooling. Atleast one party is threatening to impose VAT on school fees, so if they become unaffordable, will we see more competition in state school.
5) Should we defund the police, the army etc just because we havent used it for personal use.
6) Why should we donate to food banks or charities like Save the Children... as I already pay taxes

If we are an individual-centric society, then all the arguments are fine, but we are not. Despite paying private fees, we depend on public services so that others can access + we can use them in emergency. I am not leaning to the left suddenly, but i get tired of the same thing going around.

Now off my soapbox and I am sure someone will report me.

You’re bang on the money and you didn’t get political.

 

[bobmac]

Just in case anyone thinks I don't pay my TV license...I do, I just don't think it's good value for money, especially as we seem to be paying more each year for less sport that I would like to watch. However, if I had the choice, I wouldn't pay it.

It does seem crazy to me why Laura Kuenssberg gets paid about the same salary as Amanda Pritchard CEO NHS England.
And don't get me started on why Gary Lineker is worth £1.35m per year....5 times Ms Pritchard's salary.

 

[IanM]

I guess if you look at the profiles of the presenters you get a clearer picture of positioning!

 

[stefanovic]

As with most of the posts started by Stefanovic, I have no idea what point they are trying to make so I am unable to contribute anything to the thread

Why should I have to pay for something I don't use?
I will admit I listen to Radio 3, and that's just about all.
I will even switch that off now and listen again to my classical CD's which number about 600.

 

[RichA]

I like your list but Comic Strip Presents was created by and broadcast by Channel 4. They moved to BBC briefly but then went back to C4.

Good point. I wrongly assumed it was pre-C4. Never even occurred to me.

 

[Deleted member 18121]

My question was intended to make people think about whether institutions that are beneficial to society as a whole should be funded by all, even those who don't make use of the service.

I personally feel that the BBC is such an institution and should be supported by all, probably through general taxation.

You appear to believe it has some kind of agenda to misinform, but many would disagree.
The fact that the left think it's a puppet of the establishment while the right think it's some kind of left wing mouthpiece would seem to suggest that it is actually fairly well balanced.

You've pretty much summed up my view very well.... You're correct, I don't believe the BBC to be fair balanced or impartial, it may have been once but I don't believe that's the case any more.

If everyone only paid just for their own services, there will be no funding for any Universal services. Some of the things are fine, but not everything. You can stretch the argument ...
1) You can pay private healthcare, but your tax pays for NHS. If you choose not to pay your tax, then there wont be any public service NHS. Next time you need an ambulance, keep your insurance papers ready. This is the American Dream
2) defunding the BBC means no regional programs, no upcoming local artists on sounds, no language translations, no bbc events, no Attenborough, Cox etc.
3) We tried the railway model, where in those not using the railways no longer pay for it, but users pay top $ for a very basic service. Same for buses
4) You can put your kids in pvt school, but your tax pays for state schools. Should you stop universal access to education because you can afford private schooling. Atleast one party is threatening to impose VAT on school fees, so if they become unaffordable, will we see more competition in state school.
5) Should we defund the police, the army etc just because we havent used it for personal use.
6) Why should we donate to food banks or charities like Save the Children... as I already pay taxes

If we are an individual-centric society, then all the arguments are fine, but we are not. Despite paying private fees, we depend on public services so that others can access + we can use them in emergency. I am not leaning to the left suddenly, but i get tired of the same thing going around.

Now off my soapbox and I am sure someone will report me.

I don't think we can ever lump all public services into the same argument... Well at least I can't. My views vary very differently depending on which one we discuss.... Services which truly benefit our safety and wellbeing as a nation (police/NHS/education/energy) I believe should all be publicly funded and for the good of everyone.

I don't believe the BBC can be lumped in with the rest of those any more, as I don't believe the service they offer is for the good of everyone. It's a subject I agree to disagree on.