Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Licence to moan…
This is as stout a defence of the value for money the BBC provides it licence payers, and it comes from.... wait for it… the Mail on Sunday’s Money Blog... Sshhhh, don’t tell David Vance.... For more on the argument both ways, Biased BBC, and Tim Ireland.
Mick Fealty @ 09:10 AM
It is a bewildering mystery to me how anyone can begrudge paying £126 a year for what we get from the BBC
You don’t need to understand peoples decisions on how to spend their own money. The state has no business running a Television service and should not be in a position to oblige people to support it.
Why not slap a license fee on computers to finance state run web services?
The reality is the fee has been overtaken by technology. There is now reason the BBC can’t become a subscription service for those who want it.
Puccini is better than Lloyd-Webber, Rembrandt is better than Rolf Harris, cricket is better than rounders ... Bleak House IS better than Big Brother.
The Guardian is better than the Sun. Should people be forced to buy it?
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 10:12 AMIt is funny how the demise of ITV (steady lad!) has given an awful lot of people second thoughts about the licence fee. UTV is a very successful company, you might think that would mean a Belfast Rebus or Taggart, ‘fraid not. What has Sky done for local programming?
Just keep taking their money David.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 10:14 AMIt’s simple maths really.
An Irish speaker in the North of Ireland gets £1.20 per year in programming from the BBC. A Welsh speaker or Scots Gaelic speaker gets more than twenty times that in return. (ULTACH Trust figures).
For £131.50 - for it is that - that’s a shoddy return and illustrates the BBC’s inability to deal with Ireland’s indigenous languages on an equal footing with Britain’s Celtic languages.
No doubt the money saved on Irish is well spent, investing in the internet service which is availed of throughout the world without any licence fee being paid.
BBC’s vanity project shouldn’t be at the expense of its public service committment.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 10:22 AMMick,
If this subjective drivel from Adrian Lowery is typical of the Mail on Sunday’s financial advice, is it any wonder more and more people get into debt?
Time to axe the BBC license fee - and an end to Statist broadcasting.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 10:25 AMDV
Funny how often this ‘Statist’ broadcaster is at odds with the Government. I’m sure when the Blessed Margaret was in charge the ‘Statist’ Broadcaster transmitted only the truth!
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 12:04 PMWithout getting drawn into the debate about how minority languages are funded by the BBC, or whether mainstream commercial broadcasters do a better job, it seems that the Beeb (for all its failings) produces some excellent programming, and offers a high degree of choice - even on Saturday afternoons, when all the commercial terrestrial channels are being wasted showing people playing games ;-)
It is largely the economies of scale due to universal “subscription” via license fee that allows this to happen.
A system where the “lumpen prolitariat” were able (by channelling their benefit cheques exclusively to Sky Sports and Movies, or the Big Brother Shopping Channel) to avoid funding programmes that would give their offspring choice and the ability to escape the mental poverty of their parents, is hardly going to enhance opportunity or diversity.
Still, I suppose the kids can always get a book from a library if they are that keen to learn, eh?
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 12:14 PMAh yes the offspring, the rising sons and daughters.
As long as they eat junk food all will be well in the world of commercial broadcasting.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertising/story/0,,1833675,00.html
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 12:22 PMPaul: “Without getting drawn into the debate about how minority languages are funded by the BBC, or whether mainstream commercial broadcasters do a better job, it seems that the Beeb (for all its failings) produces some excellent programming, and offers a high degree of choice - even on Saturday afternoons, when all the commercial terrestrial channels are being wasted showing people playing games ;-) “
In other words, “Please don’t point out these gaping holes in my logic as to the efficacy of the BBC.” While they do produce some fine shows, they also have their fair share of clunkers and dross as well, Paul. Why should a body be charged for a service they do not use and would not pay for, save for the power of force that they state can bring to bear? Would you pay to support a automobile repair shop if you relied solely on public transport?
Paul: “It is largely the economies of scale due to universal “subscription” via license fee that allows this to happen.”
Sort of like the rate of “contribution” to American social security—a tax, tarted up with a lie.
Paul: “A system where the “lumpen prolitariat” were able (by channelling their benefit cheques exclusively to Sky Sports and Movies, or the Big Brother Shopping Channel) to avoid funding programmes that would give their offspring choice and the ability to escape the mental poverty of their parents, is hardly going to enhance opportunity or diversity. “
Still have a desire for a centrally controlled economy and spending other people’s money for them, neh?
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 12:43 PMDC
Would you pay to support a automobile repair shop if you relied solely on public transport?
Bad analogy
If you don’t want any TV or Radio you don’t pay a license fee. Wish it was the same for paying for Iraq.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 12:51 PMDread: Please don’t point out these gaping holes in my logic as to the efficacy of the BBC
I’ve been sussed ;-)
And yes, parts of the BBC are useless and broken. Like any other body, in fact.Would you pay to support a automobile repair shop if you relied solely on public transport?
Well, if it maintained emergency vehicles, then quite possibly.
Still have a desire for a centrally controlled economy and spending other people’s money for them, neh?
Centrally controlled economies tend not to work. On the other hand, not everything can be done by untrammelled private enterprise—not least because most real markets are not “perfect” (as all too often assumed by free market dogma).
In the real world, regulation or limited public provisioning can be a useful compromise.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 12:51 PMHenry: Why not slap a license fee on computers to finance state run web services?
Well, they have suggested a license fee on internet connections, to finance private sector media conglomerates. It can only be a matter of time…
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 01:13 PMPaul: “Well, if it maintained emergency vehicles, then quite possibly. “
And willis says I use flawed analogies… oy.
Paul: “Centrally controlled economies tend not to work. On the other hand, not everything can be done by untrammelled private enterprise—not least because most real markets are not “perfect” (as all too often assumed by free market dogma).”
Actually, in the television field, increased competition does tend to bring forth a superior product. The “lead (as in the metal) age” of television in the U.S. was when there were three broadcasters trying to predict the flavor of the month. With cable, there are a slew of educational channels, special interest channels and entertainment superior to that of the “free” broadcast channels, all arising from competition. Giving the BBC a guaranteed budget, extorted from the masses, pretty much guarantees more of the same—a few good shows, a few critically acclaimed shows few people watch and a lot of what the powers-that-be in the BBC want to make that may or may not have an audience… the broadcast of the Springer Opera comes to mind.
Paul: “In the real world, regulation or limited public provisioning can be a useful compromise. “
Ah, but what the BBC has is neither—what it has is a guaranteed budget, regardless of the quality of its product, extorted throught the power of the state. The state does not control over the BBC, save the decision whether or not to renew its charter. Ideally, the BBC should be more akin to American public broadcasting—seed money from the government and public support, rather than an arbitrary tax.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 01:41 PMWillis,
When Thatcher was in power, the leftists at the BBC were in full opposition mode to the idea of a properly Conservative administration. The same Statist broadcaster swooned when Blair and his liberal rabble entered Downing Street. It has only been Blair’s support for the US over recent years that has caused the BBC to kick against him. The BBC is institutionally to the left, it costs a fortune, and contrary to what Mick implies, there is no valid economic case made by the Mail on Sunday.
Next..
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 02:03 PMDavid
So you agree with me that the ‘statist’ BBC always ends up opposing the state !!
Next
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 07:21 PM“In other words, “Please don’t point out these gaping holes in my logic as to the efficacy of the BBC.” While they do produce some fine shows, they also have their fair share of clunkers and dross as well, Paul.”
Enirely subjective judgement, answered by the fact that most people are boardly satisfuies with the BBC.
“Why should a body be charged for a service they do not use and would not pay for, save for the power of force that they state can bring to bear? Would you pay to support a automobile repair shop if you relied solely on public transport?”
Because the BBC has frionge benefits, like maintaining quality in the market. Compare US versus UK TV news. But this is an ideological argument, and I honestly don’t care for it. The BBC, in general works and benefits everyone. Whether or not it is sound from an ideological standpoint is irrelevant.
“Sort of like the rate of “contribution” to American social security—a tax, tarted up with a lie.”
Yeah, the lie that the government will honour it’s bonds and commitmenmts. Been through this one.
“When Thatcher was in power, the leftists at the BBC were in full opposition mode to the idea of a properly Conservative administration.”
Since when has far right, neo liberal policies been “peroper Conservative”. The Right consists of many different strands, and neo libberal economics was at one point on the Left, with, well, the Liberal Party. It was radical at the time and this suggestion is nuts.
“The same Statist broadcaster swooned when Blair and his liberal rabble entered Downing Street.”
Because he won a huge landslide. Or don’t you care for Democracy.
“It has only been Blair’s support for the US over recent years that has caused the BBC to kick against him.”
Only through special Right Wing specs. the BBC is quite happy to kick the government on a range of issues.
“The BBC is institutionally to the left, it costs a fortune, and contrary to what Mick implies, there is no valid economic case made by the Mail on Sunday.”
What an amazing incisive and well backed up argument, I’m won over. Oh wait, no, the other one.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 10:33 PM“No doubt the money saved on Irish is well spent, investing in the internet service which is availed of throughout the world without any licence fee being paid.”
This is not true, certainly the BBc website is available on the web but it´s interactive and live broadcasts are not, with the exception of Radio services excluding live football coverage.
So if you are a license fee payer but spend a great deal of time abroad, you cannot avail of the full service. This is something Ifeel the BBc needs to look at urgently.
As for the lack of irish gaelic language programmes, well I´m sure the 3 people with T.V. licenses in Twinbrook, the 2 households in Poleglass and the 1 maisonette in the bogside are more than happy.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2006 @ 11:47 PMPerhaps those here who object to the cost of the licence fee could do their bit to keep it down by refusing payment from the BBC for their appearances on BBC Radio and TV?
Just otherwise, people might think that they’re being a bit hypocritical...oh wait…
Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 09:25 AMI Wonder
Trying to rouse a sleeping giant eh!
I just wonder if there is any connection between the Mail on Sunday’s positive assessment of the BBC and the fact that the Mail Group have been trying to boost their circulation with free DVD’s of David Attenborough wildlife epics.
Now let’s see, Sky has been operating on subscription and advertising for 10+ years and its own creative output amounts to........
I think the begrudgers should do the same as Murdoch, go out there and show us what the free unfettered market can produce. Deadwood anyone?
Lots of the begrudgers quote Jeff Randall, who certainly has nailed the anti-business bias in parts of the BBC, however The Apprentice and Dragon’s Den have both made serious attempts to make enterprise entertaining.
Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 10:37 AMkensai.
Sorry but your analysis is profoundly flawed, rather like the BBC.
For starters, “The BBC, in general works and benefits everyone.” Can you share with us your basis for this sweeping claim. It certainly COSTS us. The benefit is less obvious.
Your idea that the BBC “kicks the government” is a fantasy. The BBC “KICKS the government” when the Government does not conform to its puerile Student Grant agenda, so beloved of the leftists that infest this site.
Mick’s post was predicated on an alleged economic defence of the BBC license fee. In fact if you read it, it is purely subjective and without economic grounding. Is that SO HARD for you to understand?
Anyway, nothing I say will change the minds of those here who worship at the gates of the State Broacaster - so I guess I’ll just have to take advantage of all forums offered to me to make the point more broadly that the BBC license tax must go.
As for those hypocrites who condemn me for accepting offers from the BBC to comment on matters politic, would you take the same view that Sinn Fein/IRA should not accept 1 penny from the British State which they oppose?
No? While you’re thinking up an answer I’m off to cash my latest BBC cheque.Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 12:28 PM“Can you share with us your basis for this sweeping claim. It certainly COSTS us. The benefit is less obvious.”
Only if you are blind, deaf and never connect to the internet.
“Your idea that the BBC “kicks the government” is a fantasy. The BBC “KICKS the government” when the Government does not conform to its puerile Student Grant agenda, so beloved of the leftists that infest this site.”
Suddenly the veil has been lifted from my eyes! Oh, wait no, the other one.
The BBC is not particularly out of step with the rest of the news media, and stuff like Panorama will frequently produce stuff embrassing to the government. Your problem with the BBC is idelogical, and your opinion is therefore somewhat skewed.
“Mick’s post was predicated on an alleged economic defence of the BBC license fee. In fact if you read it, it is purely subjective and without economic grounding. Is that SO HARD for you to understand?”
No, IT ISN’T. Because it is SO EASY. Do you realise how much of a COCK you are BEING?
The only economic argument the article makes, really, is that the BBC is value for money, because you get a lot from the BBC does a lot for what you pay. Which is objectively true.
“Anyway, nothing I say will change the minds of those here who worship at the gates of the State Broacaster - so I guess I’ll just have to take advantage of all forums offered to me to make the point more broadly that the BBC license tax must go.”
This bit is so irony that it rusts.
Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 12:52 PMDavid Vance: “Can you share with us your basis for this sweeping claim. It certainly COSTS us. The benefit is less obvious.”
Kensei: “Only if you are blind, deaf and never connect to the internet. “
In other words, no, you can’t, other than to make petty insults and dodge the question.
Kensei: “The BBC is not particularly out of step with the rest of the news media, and stuff like Panorama will frequently produce stuff embrassing to the government. Your problem with the BBC is idelogical, and your opinion is therefore somewhat skewed. “
Your problem is that the BBC is skewed in the direction of your ideology and, thus, your opinion is suspect.
Kensei: “No, IT ISN’T. Because it is SO EASY. Do you realise how much of a COCK you are BEING? “
Ah, when unable to respond with a clever riposte, the subject resorts to petty insults.
Kensei: “The only economic argument the article makes, really, is that the BBC is value for money, because you get a lot from the BBC does a lot for what you pay. Which is objectively true.”
Not really. In the states, you probably pay roughly the same for sixty channels, covering the full range of maintream opinion, entertainment and educational options to boot. If the BBC is such a good bargain, why not let it compete on its own two feet? If it really is all that and a bag of chips, why this fear that one day it will have to enter the free marketplace?
Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 01:08 PMDread Cthulhu,
Thanks for that effective response to Kensai’s babble.
Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 01:12 PMDV
I do understand that everyone is subjective except you. Given that you have not chosen to supply any links to any economic analysis, let me point you to this short analysis of the Peacock Committee on BBC funding (including that old leftie Samuel Brittain) set up in The Blessed Margaret’s Golden Age.
Peacock Committee
Report of the Committee on Financing the BBC
Appointed: 27th March 1985
Reported: 29th May 1986
Members:
Professor Alan Peacock
Samuel Brittan
Judith Chalmers
Jeremy Hardie
Professor Alastair Hetherington
Lord Quinton
Sir Peter Reynolds
Discussed: BBC funding (taxation, sponsorship, advertising or licence fee) and efficiency, cable and satellite broadcasting
Recommended:
• licence fee continues, indexed to the RPI
• Radio 1 and 2 privatisation
• more broadcasting hours
• independent production quotas
• ITV companies franchise auctions
• removal of cable and satellite broadcasting restrictions
Outcomes included: Charter renewal and licence fee (although increase was less than the BBC had hoped), BBC staff cuts and efficiency drives, night-time broadcasting, independent production sector growth, deregulation of ITV, satellite broadcasting.Oh Dear what happened? The enemy lay prostrate before her and yet she did not attack.
Probably that smoothie Douglas Hurd, like Willie before him, advised her that the country wouldn’t take it. How right he was.
Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 01:16 PMwillis: “Oh Dear what happened? The enemy lay prostrate before her and yet she did not attack. “
The elimination of an institution is not something that can usually be done over-night…
Rome wasn’t brought down in a day, either.
willis: “Probably that smoothie Douglas Hurd, like Willie before him, advised her that the country wouldn’t take it. How right he was. “
That it is beloved doesn’t make it any less the dinosaur, willis.
Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 01:20 PMDC: That it is beloved doesn’t make [the BBC] any less the dinosaur, willis.
Being a “dinosaur” (if by that you mean both old and out of tune with what some observer finds pleasingly modern) does not automatically require that we make something extinct!
Even (especially?) if you’re on the American Right, and don’t believe in the environment ;-)
Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 @ 02:04 PM
