5 thoughts on “Scrap the free TV licence – and scrap the TV licence”

  1. Posted 17/06/2019 at 16:02 | Permalink

    The principle of paying pensioners and others their non means tested benefits as part of their monetary benefits and not as an arbitrary waiver of fees and charges makes good sense.

    1. The true costs of the related services are better controlled and accounted for.
    2. The relevant providers can receive the necessary funding based on the appropriate budgets using market determined costs.

    I agree with Prof.Booth that a government provided free service if relevant and justified should not be treated as free service only to selected persons without means testing whilst being paid for as a licence fee by others. Payment of licence fees becomes tantamount to a form of tax.

  2. Posted 17/06/2019 at 21:45 | Permalink

    No to this conclusion The BBC should move to a subscription model
    Why?
    Because I, Philip Booth of the Professorship recommends it, seems to be the reason. But what about the principle of having some representation for your taxation, and being accountable to the people that pay for you?
    If the people who pay the licence want a subscription model, and are able to express that view when they vote for elected Trustees who run on such a platform, then I would be with Professor Booth. But for crying out loud, give the people who have paid the licence fee all these years under threat of court the chance to make that decision. Or to choose some other changes to the system. Or even to keep it the same. But let’s start by making the BBC formally accountable to people who have already paid for the buildings, training, infrastructure and back catalogue i.e. the existing licence fee payers.

  3. Posted 19/06/2019 at 03:00 | Permalink

    I am not sure that we disagree. So, step one, the BBC is turned into a body like the National Trust where all its current licence fee holders are members and, yes, they can vote for the trustees. Step two is that next time anybody’s licence fee comes up for renewal non-renewal has only one consequence: the non-renewer cannot watch the BBC. A simple process has created a mutual run on voluntary lines.

  4. Posted 20/06/2019 at 22:39 | Permalink

    I am sure that we disagree.
    I want the Trustees to be elected by the licence fee payer, and for the Trust to have the power to reflect their collective views on cost, scope, coercion, universality and content, that sort of thing. Personally, I’d vote for a candidate for Trustee who said they’d get rid of content provided by the free market ( 24 hr news, soaps, breakfast tv etc ), halve the licence fee, but kept the universality as it’s an institution that binds us as a nation by our requirement to pay for it and the quality and reputation internationally that might result. My candidate might not win, and I’d accept that.
    Professor Booth’s essential view is different. You care about people having the right to stop paying and walk away, but expressed no preference for breaking the link to the structures of State ( in this case the DCMS ) for those who want to continue subscribing.
    If given a choice between two worlds:
    1. A State controlled broadcaster you don’t have to pay for. ( What sort of ideas do you think the State will come up with to plug that funding gap when lots of people cancel their DD? It’s dreadful to contemplate )
    2. No State controlled broadcasters. But a citizen controlled broadcaster exists which you do have to pay for but is accountable to you and whose cost and content you can affect.
    I’d rather take my chances with the second, thanks.

  5. Posted 21/06/2019 at 14:25 | Permalink

    okay, i see. It might not be as clear as it should be, but without question, i want the trust to be totally independent of the state. As i say, like the National Trust (the governors of which are elected by the members). But, you are right i don’t believe in compulsion.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.