The debate on the BBC and the licence fee was fuelled by Nicky Morgan yesterday.
Morgan said the licence fee will last until 2027. Thereafter she could not say. But she did say that she wants to decriminalise non-payment of the BBC licence fee.
I am aware of all the issues about the BBC. And I, for all the BBC's faults - and it has them, believe it vital that we retain a public broadcaster.
And I am also aware of all the flaws in the licence fee. It is a tax. It is an extremely badly designed tax. It is deeply regressive. It has wholly unintended incidence in some cases that means it is simply unjust. But, and this is a massive but, it is still a tax.
So what do you do about this poll tax, for that is what it is?
First, you have to enforce it whilst you have it, because unless you do you create precedents for all sorts of other issues, although I have to say that I wish the same enthusiasm for enforcement was used on those who commit much more serious, and deliberate, tax fraud.
And second, you have to consider that the alternative is. It cannot be another poll tax. It cannot be another charge that is not fit for the fragmented way many households now are. And it cannot be regressive. There is, even, a very good question as to why a hypothecated tax is appropriate for this isolated situation.
But if none of these scenarios is capable of resolution then the question has to be asked as to what the alternative is. Might that simply be funding by direct taxation? That would be entirely possible, and much fairer.
Or is there a broad digital tax to pay for something valuable - which has to be objective reporting?
I do not have the answers.
But what I am worried about is a government saying that a tax need not be enforced, because that is a very slippery slope in its own right, not because I like the BBC licence fee, but because that opens all sorts of doors to other aspects of non-enforcement that might suit those who have no love of tax and all the good it can do.
This is a debate worth having.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The BBC has become a very expensive and I would argue bloated organisation. £3.7 billion was raised from the licence fee in 2019. £1.2bn more came from commercial and other activities (such as grants, royalties and rental income). So, about £5 billion in total. How much money do they need to carry out its remit as a public broadcaster?
I suspect they could probably get by on less than half of the current revenue by simply cutting out all of the areas where they do not really need to compete with commercial tv and radio. Do they need more than two TV channels? 4 national radio channels? Regional radio and the World Service? A website? I think not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BBC_television_channels_and_radio_stations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Worldwide
The fact that 25% of income now comes from commercial sources tells us that they can make money. The BBC back catalog is also very much in demand and in itself could provide them with a decent income. The BBC has a good brand name and clearly they can sell it. The rest should come from general taxation with the amount determined by Parliament based on an assessment from an independent review board.
I’m totally against any “digital tax” that simply replaces the current licence, which means because of relatively new technology like the web, which let’s be honest is the biggest threat to the BBC’s income, we are effectively taxed to access the internet so the beeb can be paid. Better that any funding is done from general taxation. The world has changed. Gone are the days when it was easy for them to collect the licence fee because if you had a telly, chances are you were watching it live and would therefore need a licence. The internet has changed the ballgame and it is something that the bbc should not be allowed to effectively control access to by either extending current TV licence requirements or by having a new digital web tax imposed.
You do ignore that they are by far the most popular broadcaster
And their website is popular too
What is the problem with that?
Richard
I have no problem with it. I’m not against the BBC and I do believe there is a role for it. In the past when I had a TV it was the BBC that I mostly watched. I have no axe to grind against it. It has a history of producing much of quality, much of which is now clearly in demand and sold around the world. However, I do think there is room to debate what its remit should be and whether it now has its fingers in too many pies. The more I look into it the more I think it is just too big, In terms of ensuring quality It could probably do it on say a couple of billion quid a year rather than the current £5 billion.
Well paid BBC football presenter Gary Lineker has even suggested that the licence fee be voluntary. Now, that would be a true test of just how popular the BBC is.
And maybe he is just naive
No Mar P, that is not correct. The BBC is one of the few world class organisations the UK has left, which we’re going to need to promote/uphold what’s left of the UK’s reputation around the world after Brexit. If there is any sense left in this country (!), we’d be doing our level best to promote, support and back the BBC.
But no, instead, we have a government full of people who want shot of the BBC because it is a succesful public sector organisation, and doesn’t (whatever paranoid left wingers think) just pump out right wing propaganda on their behalf. So what if the BBC has a large number of TV and radio channels and competes with the commercial sector? It is nothing more than the ideological bigotry of the right to declare that the BBC is crowding out the private sector, when in fact it is providing competition to it, or, shock horror, actually doing a better job in providing programs. Are football fans better off now having to pay a small fortune to watch it on Sky or BT rather than on the BBC paying a much smaller licence fee?
Decriminalising the licence fee is nothing more than a cynical, backdoor way of attacking the BBC, as was the move to force it to reveal the slary levels of its top presenters (while ignoring the much higher levels of the BBC’s competitors). Do you think the right really give a damn about prosecuting lower income women who are the majority of people taken to court over this issue? Of course they don’t.
If there’s going to be a replacement for the licence fee let it be one that is socially fairer, doesn’t allow the government to exert pressure on the BBC by threatening it’s level, and, just as importantly, doesn’t involve cuts to one of this countries greatest achievements.
I agree with that sentiment on the BBC
My Wife practised her English listening to BBC wild service many years ago (yes I know it has Foreign office funding). And othere parts of the world rely on it’s independence I hope we can keep that above all.
So you think the BBC is a world class organisation? In 2014 Nick Robinson claimed that Alex Salmond “did not answer the question”. A question that was answered in great depth and in front of journalists from all around the world. That quote by Mr Robinson made him, and the BBC, an international laughing stock.
However that is not an isolated incident because it happens almost daily, especially in Scotland. A website well worth a visit, whichever country you reside in is https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/.
I don’t for a moment say it is perfect
But let’s be real
Nothing is and it’s absurd to pretend this is the standard an organisation must meet
Willie, I’m not pretending the BBC is perfect, no human organisation is; I am pointing out that the attacks made on it re the licence fee are nothing to with promoting social justice (something the right couldn’t care less about), and everything to do with ideological bigotry, spite, stupidity and a desire to suppress all non right wing news and opinion.
If I’m honest with you Willie, the issue of the BBC’s impartiality is the one issue I would seriously disagree with advocates of Scottish independence. I don’t believe the BBC is systematically always promoting the unionist cause, though I’ll agree that as a British broadcaster it tends towards supporting the status quo, probably unconciously.
Scottish nationalists, like other progressives, would do well not to collude in the right’s attacks on the BBC. What would this shower of a government replace it with? Something much worse, I’m sure. Save your media criticism for the right wing pro unionist newspapers that actively promote the union, like the ludicrous Daily Express.
@SickOf…I think you may have a somewhat benign view of the BBC and it’s impartiality. I,ve mentioned Tom Mills book before. He argues it is a myth and has always since the day of Reith been supportive of the Government line.
If my local BBC radio station didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be any serious media coverage of our local football team. The local newspaper is now produced by journalists who work miles away from the area and is pretty much useless for any reasonable coverage of local issues. We would miss out on a lot without the BBC.
I don’t personally believe that the local commercial radio stations could expand their sporting coverage in the event that the local BBC radio station was closed down, even if they did begin to receive greater amounts of advertising revenue.
The Govt have found a convenient way of hitting the BBC in a move that may be popular. BUT the BBC is genuinely one of the most respected broadcasting organisations in the world. We won’t know what we have lost until it is gone or severely reduced.
Yes, young people ‘consume’ by internet – both radio and TV, but I suspect, that just as digital books have not overtaken printed matter, it is only time before the young appreciate well produced radio and TV that is scheduled as well as on demand. I hope it is still around in a significant way in 10 years time.
Yes, the licence fee is a tax, but it is something we all share and have a stake in regardless of whether we like paying it.
I recall listening to the account of how John Craven’s Newsround got it’s material – journalists in far flung places would keep the phone/satellite connection open after their main piece in order to provide content for the programme. Those higher up in BBC circles were not pleased, but it allowed Newsround to provide very good coverage aimed at children and was thereafter given a bit more prominence.
I am hopeful therefore, that journalists, just as they have done recently in their walkout where half had been excluded from the briefing, will continue to stand up for good and impartial news broadcasting.
Granted the licence fee is a regressive tax but it doesn’t have to be criminalised.
After all water is essential for life itself – but if you don’t pay your water bill you are taken to county court rather than prosecuted.
If we are stuck with the licence fee it seems reasonable that the BBC should have the same system
Yes there are problems with the BBC’S output and impartiality but the question here is funding. General taxation would be my preference. However it would need to be beyond the reach of political interference. A rate-setting independent body such as the MPC or ONS beyond the whim or spite of ministers. Perhaps even members of the public – people such as me who don’t have TV.
The independence issue would be key
The BBC needs to be protected from this predatory government. This new ‘initiative’ of theirs is another attempt at diminishing the world famous brand. Anything public funded will be a target, in the media especially, as it is such a powerful tool for shaping a culture and public opinion.
Despite its faults, its bias in political editing these days, its tendency to ‘tabloidisation’ of some programmes, it has world class productions, and journalists/reporters/researchers.
Taxation for such an asset is essential to keep it going.
Why not look at what they do in France, and improve on it perhaps?
I pay my French TV licence fee with my council taxes, they include the TV licence cost, which is waved for over 75 yrs olds. Everyone pays the same amount, which isn’t ideal, but calculating progressive rates and adjusting them to income was deemed too costly to administer.
There has never been a backlash against that tax in France….so it must be acceptable 😉
I’m puzzled. If I want to watch Sky, it’s going to cost me around £360/year. If I want Netflix, around £72/year for the basic package, and Amazon Prime is £94. And I’ll get bombarded by adverts, a load of imported crass, poorly produced drivel passing as entertainment and frankly a lot of right-wing biased reporting and content completely customised to meet my personal preferences, and hence nothing that might challenge me or shift me out of my comfort zone.
So paying the license fee gives me amazing radio and TV choices and no advertising and I get to have my views and beliefs challenged by seeing a varied and wide range of perspectives and opinions.
I think it’s brilliant value for money. I just don’t get the hostility I see in posts from some people (and from that awful woman who was part of the newspaper review on BH on Sunday). It truly befuddles me…
The BBC does a lot of things that a commercial organisation would not do because of the guarantee that the licence fee provides.
The funding basis of the BBC also acts as a bulwark against the likelihood that all UK broadcasting will eventually be foreign owned. Don’t forget the Government is also seeking to privatise Channel 4. Privatisation of broadcasting leads to the privatisation of broadcast news and, despite obvious reservations about the BBC news output, I think it safe to assume that in most cases privatised news will have an editorial line closer to the conservative view than a more progressive one.
The focus of the Government on the licence fee is yet another example of Tory Party opinion becoming central to the debate where there is no current national interest. Just as leaving the EU was not an issue to most people prior to Tory Party politicians making it one so too the licence fee is an issue that most people do not have a major interest in.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong in discussing how the BBC should be funded but it needs to be discussed against a backdrop of how to preserve its uniqueness in the broadcasting environment. What shouldn’t happen is for the licence fee debate to be weaponised by the Tory Party in order to remove an organisation it doesn’t like and to change the editorial policy to suit its own views.