Also in the news

[Countryfox]

 

Is our Gazza worth this ? ...   to anchor a football programme ...   I think not.    Surely they could get someone just as capable for a fraction of the price...      I can understand why Norton gets well paid cus he is the show but surely we watch MOTD to watch the football ...

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Nickfosse said:

Makes no sense to me that thousands of millionaire over 75s get a free tv licence. 

 

The logic comes from avoiding red tape, ensuring good take-up & electoral politics:

 

- Red tape: It's much cheaper to administer "universal benefits" (e.g. licences paid to all pensioners) than means-tested benefits (working out who's poor enough to need it etc.). Mind you, paying it to everyone who gets pension credit sounds simple enough to administer......if all poorer pensioners are willing and able to claim pension credit....

 

- Ensuring good take-up: A lot of older people are too proud to apply for "charity hand-outs" & a lot more would find it impossible or massively stressful. Of pensioners poor enough to be eligible for pension credit, 40% don't claim it!

 

- Electoral politics: Giving all over-75s free TV licences made it more acceptable to the electorate. It meant that those who weren't poor didn't see it as the govt giving hand-outs to "lazy scroungers who only had themselves to blame for being skint - if they'd worked hard like me, they wouldn't need it....I earned every penny I've got and now look at the commies in Govt giving taxpayers' money to lazy scroungers" (e.g. Daily Mail/Express/Sun readers)

 

2 hours ago, String fellow said:

Presumably you don't know any 90+ year-olds, who simply cannot cope with the complexities of modern life, and who need this new worry like a hole in the head. The worry I refer to is not only the question of how to afford it (without sacrificing something else, like having to turn the heating down), but also the practical problem of physically paying for it.    

 

2 hours ago, Nickfosse said:

Fair point, but I do know 90 year olds who are ridiculously wealthy. I can’t see the justification of them receiving free stuff. They manage perfectly well when it comes to booking exotic cruises, I’m sure they can manage the process of paying for a license. 

 

My parents weren't ridiculously wealthy but they owned their own home and had good pensions, so they shared your view about comfortably-off pensioners getting the licence, Nick. However, once my Dad was a 90-year-old widower no longer physically or mentally capable of leaving home alone, the TV became more crucial to avoid isolation. Also, he had been a highly intelligent man well capable of complex organisation. But by 90, he would not have been able to handle paying for a licence (Parkinson's gave him mild dementia & left him physically incapable of writing his name). Fortunately, although I didn't live nearby, he was able to give me power of attorney to handle his financial affairs - but not everyone has someone available to do that or to help out as Swan & others help his neighbour....they'll be some of the people who end up as String fellow describes.

 

So, on the one hand, there are poorer pensioners who would end up turning down the heating or eating less to afford a TV licence, perhaps the only thing that makes their isolation bearable.....because they're too proud or incapable of claiming pension credit. On the other, better-off pensioners can also suddenly become poorer (e.g. care costs) or less capable - and TV can become much more important to them.

 

Of course, this is also a deliberate right-wing govt/media attack on the BBC, a potential media critic of influence. There are plenty of arguments for & against how the BBC is run and funded. But it is a fact that the govt has massively slashed its budget. Some cuts have already happened (closure of BBC3 & other channels, pay cuts etc.). The BBC had a choice between (a) funding TV licences for all pensioners by making further massive cuts, closing channels etc.; (b) limiting such drastic cuts by not funding free TV licences for wealthier pensioners - and putting the ball back in the govt's court, where it should be. It was a govt decision to fund free TV licences - and govt funded it before. They've decided, in effect, to stop funding those free licences but to try to make the BBC take the blame - much as it does with cuts to council budgets leading to councils being blamed for cuts in local services.

 

Either the BBC starts giving loads of its budget to pensioners & damages its service, or it risks public blame by refusing to take over all the govt funding. Either way, the Govt & right-wing media get to damage the reputation of an important national institution - and one capable of influential criticism of govts of every persuasion. Some will be delighted at that. But they won't be happy until this country is turned into a stinking dungheap presided over by some True Brit Hitler in a union jack waistcoat, crushing and blaming working people, the poor and immigrants, while extra cash goes to the super-wealthy whose interests this govt & its lickspittle newspapers serve.

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Is our Gazza worth this ? ...   to anchor a football programme ...   I think not.    Surely they could get someone just as capable for a fraction of the price...      I can understand why Norton gets well paid cus he is the show but surely we watch MOTD to watch the football ...

 

 

Not in a million years 

[David Guiza]

Steve Wright would go first and his bloody serious jockin'. 

 

[Nickfosse]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The logic comes from avoiding red tape, ensuring good take-up & electoral politics:

 

- Red tape: It's much cheaper to administer "universal benefits" (e.g. licences paid to all pensioners) than means-tested benefits (working out who's poor enough to need it etc.). Mind you, paying it to everyone who gets pension credit sounds simple enough to administer......if all poorer pensioners are willing and able to claim pension credit....

 

- Ensuring good take-up: A lot of older people are too proud to apply for "charity hand-outs" & a lot more would find it impossible or massively stressful. Of pensioners poor enough to be eligible for pension credit, 40% don't claim it!

 

- Electoral politics: Giving all over-75s free TV licences made it more acceptable to the electorate. It meant that those who weren't poor didn't see it as the govt giving hand-outs to "lazy scroungers who only had themselves to blame for being skint - if they'd worked hard like me, they wouldn't need it....I earned every penny I've got and now look at the commies in Govt giving taxpayers' money to lazy scroungers" (e.g. Daily Mail/Express/Sun readers)

 

 

 

My parents weren't ridiculously wealthy but they owned their own home and had good pensions, so they shared your view about comfortably-off pensioners getting the licence, Nick. However, once my Dad was a 90-year-old widower no longer physically or mentally capable of leaving home alone, the TV became more crucial to avoid isolation. Also, he had been a highly intelligent man well capable of complex organisation. But by 90, he would not have been able to handle paying for a licence (Parkinson's gave him mild dementia & left him physically incapable of writing his name). Fortunately, although I didn't live nearby, he was able to give me power of attorney to handle his financial affairs - but not everyone has someone available to do that or to help out as Swan & others help his neighbour....they'll be some of the people who end up as String fellow describes.

 

So, on the one hand, there are poorer pensioners who would end up turning down the heating or eating less to afford a TV licence, perhaps the only thing that makes their isolation bearable.....because they're too proud or incapable of claiming pension credit. On the other, better-off pensioners can also suddenly become poorer (e.g. care costs) or less capable - and TV can become much more important to them.

 

Of course, this is also a deliberate right-wing govt/media attack on the BBC, a potential media critic of influence. There are plenty of arguments for & against how the BBC is run and funded. But it is a fact that the govt has massively slashed its budget. Some cuts have already happened (closure of BBC3 & other channels, pay cuts etc.). The BBC had a choice between (a) funding TV licences for all pensioners by making further massive cuts, closing channels etc.; (b) limiting such drastic cuts by not funding free TV licences for wealthier pensioners - and putting the ball back in the govt's court, where it should be. It was a govt decision to fund free TV licences - and govt funded it before. They've decided, in effect, to stop funding those free licences but to try to make the BBC take the blame - much as it does with cuts to council budgets leading to councils being blamed for cuts in local services.

 

Either the BBC starts giving loads of its budget to pensioners & damages its service, or it risks public blame by refusing to take over all the govt funding. Either way, the Govt & right-wing media get to damage the reputation of an important national institution - and one capable of influential criticism of govts of every persuasion. Some will be delighted at that. But they won't be happy until this country is turned into a stinking dungheap presided over by some True Brit Hitler in a union jack waistcoat, crushing and blaming working people, the poor and immigrants, while extra cash goes to the super-wealthy whose interests this govt & its lickspittle newspapers serve.

As ever, brilliant points well made. 

[Alf Bentley]

21 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Is our Gazza worth this ? ...   to anchor a football programme ...   I think not.    Surely they could get someone just as capable for a fraction of the price...      I can understand why Norton gets well paid cus he is the show but surely we watch MOTD to watch the football ...

 

 

The usual argument for high pay from those on the right is that it is market forces - and that the market price for exceptional talent is exceptionally high.

 

Of course, you can argue about the value of Lineker or anyone else. Likewise, many people would question the value of the wages that LCFC pays to its players and senior staff.

 

Perhaps get Martin Keown to host MOTD on half the pay? 

Or employ some bright lad/lass on the minimum wage and give the money saved to pensioners?

There might be a few objections from the public, though.... 

 

Edited 11 June 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Mike Oxlong]

The license fee is to fund the BBC but has to be paid even if you were only to watch other channels such as ITV and C4 which I suppose we pay for indirectly through advertising

 

Is that right ? 

 

Seems a bit of a stitch up and anti-competitive to me, particularly when the BBC just can’t deliver the quality of programming that it used to.

 

 

 

 

[Kopfkino]

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Honestly, from what I can tell most arguments against the BBC tend to be either based on assumed political bias (considering it gets this from both ends of the spectrum I'd say they are doing something right about being impartial) or the classic libertarian argument of "I don't use it, so why should fund it?" which you could basically apply to any public service. If that's people's idea of an ideal world, fair enough.

 

Why is there/should there be a poll tax on TV ownership? 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Why is there/should there be a poll tax on TV ownership? 

 

Out of curiosity, what funding method would you prefer?

- Subscription fees, like Sky?

- Advertising, like ITV?

- A combination of the two above?

- Pay-per-view?

- Govt. funding from general tax revenue?

 

And how would the poorer elderly, particularly the isolated/immobile, afford it, if it wasn't fully funded by general tax or advertising?

Keep some sort of state subsidy? Just accept more early deaths, hospitalisations & mental health problems among the elderly?

 

Difficult to see how some services (e.g. BBC2, BBC4, World Service radio) could be commercially funded - except by cross-subsidy from revenues for more popular BBC1-type programmes?

[LiberalFox]

I think the bbc should be funded from general taxation.

[David Guiza]

The beauty of the BBC Radio remains the lack of adverts. I generally listen to Spotify/Podcasts on longer journeys, but quite often on my commute or short drives I'll listen to the radio and I'll usually stick 5Live or Radio 2 on and nearly always enjoy it.  My Dad, however, is an avid TalkSport listener and, among other reasons, I can't stand the station because there are adverts every 6 minutes or so, ranging from your generic commercial radio adverts to every single feature, game, show etc having some sort of gambling sponsorship. It makes it practically unlistenable (the presenters and callers add to that too).

 

The Tories have been after the BBC for a long time now and I think the current climate of division across society is just adding fuel to the anti-BBC fire. It's yet another topic where you must be either massively in favour of the BBC or want it shutting down with immediate effect, ultimately it has many flaws that need addressing but it'll be a huge loss if/when it does go.  

 

 

[Kopfkino]

17 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Out of curiosity, what funding method would you prefer?

- Subscription fees, like Sky?

- Advertising, like ITV?

- A combination of the two above?

- Pay-per-view?

- Govt. funding from general tax revenue?

 

And how would the poorer elderly, particularly the isolated/immobile, afford it, if it wasn't fully funded by general tax or advertising?

Keep some sort of state subsidy? Just accept more early deaths, hospitalisations & mental health problems among the elderly?

 

Difficult to see how some services (e.g. BBC2, BBC4, World Service radio) could be commercially funded - except by cross-subsidy from revenues for more popular BBC1-type programmes?

It should come from a progressive tax levied on everyone that has taxable income (and it should be ring-fenced). Exactly as Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Netherlands have done recently. Backed up by advertising revenues or a possibly a subscription model for extra content.

 

 I can't imagine you supported Maggie's poll tax so I don't understand why you support a poll tax on TVs. 

 

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Just accept more early deaths, hospitalisations & mental health problems among the elderly?

Also no idea why you have this tendency to just say really stupid things. Obviously not, well maybe the FBPE types might favour this.

[Vince Vega]

1 hour ago, Countryfox said:

 

Is our Gazza worth this ? ...   to anchor a football programme ...   I think not.    Surely they could get someone just as capable for a fraction of the price...      I can understand why Norton gets well paid cus he is the show but surely we watch MOTD to watch the football ...

 

 

 

I may be wrong on this, so feel free to correct me, but i don't think we can compare Gary's £1.75m with Graham Norton's £600k.  I understand that Norton's £600k is the amount the BBC is paying him directly (for radio etc.) and it doesn't include the amount he receives from the BBC via his share of the So Television company, who produce his TV show. 

[Mike Oxlong]

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

It should come from a progressive tax levied on everyone that has taxable income (and it should be ring-fenced). Exactly as Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Netherlands have done recently. Backed up by advertising revenues or a possibly a subscription model for extra content.

 

 I can't imagine you supported Maggie's poll tax so I don't understand why you support a poll tax on TVs. 

 

Also no idea why you have this tendency to just say really stupid things. Obviously not, well maybe the FBPE types might favour this.

 

I didn't say that I did support "a poll tax on TVs". Admittedly, I didn't answer your question. That was partly because I took it to be rhetorical (an expression of your opposition to the licence) - and partly because I didn't have a fixed view.

That's why I asked how you'd fund it, as someone opposed who might have alternative ideas. For most of my life, the existence of the TV licence wasn't questioned any more than the existence of income tax or the NHS.

 

Your alternative solution sounds good to me - and I wasn't aware of the recent changes in those other countries. Thanks for the info.

 

However, as I'm sure you're aware, that solution could attract even more opposition than the TV licence. At least with the TV licence, people without a TV don't pay. So, the moaning comes from those who have a TV but claim to rarely/never watch BBC - as well as from vested interests like the Tory Party, ITV employee Piers Morgan & rival print and broadcast media, often of a right-wing persuasion. Funding the BBC from general, progressive taxation would attract the ire of those who don't have a TV, too. Your idea sounds a good one to me, but I'm someone who sees the BBC as a really valuable institution, despite its failings.....those who are opposed don't see it that way.

 

I had to look up FBPE as I'm not on Twitter - sounds like typical hysterical Twitter shite.

 

My comment about accepting early deaths among the elderly was melodramatic rhetoric - presented as an alternative to keeping a state subsidy for elderly TV viewers - and a rhetorical option that I didn't expect you to prefer.

I was seeking to provoke a response (from you and others). Though, of course, leaving lots of impoverished pensioners without TV access WOULD cause early deaths, hospitalisations and mental health problems, so in that sense my comment was neither "stupid" nor melodramatic rhetoric.

 

So, you made a groundless false assumption about my stance on the licence, among other crimes....yet you accuse me of saying "really stupid things", just for asking a colourful rhetorical question?  

 

No offence taken, though, and I don't think you have a "tendency to just say really stupid things". Your posts are mostly among the most thoughtful on here, including this one, even if I sometimes disagree with them.

See that up there? No, cast your gaze even higher..... Yes, up there! That's me on the moral high ground, that is! 

 

 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The license fee is to fund the BBC but has to be paid even if you were only to watch other channels such as ITV and C4 which I suppose we pay for indirectly through advertising

 

Is that right ? 

 

Seems a bit of a stitch up and anti-competitive to me, particularly when the BBC just can’t deliver the quality of programming that it used to.

 

 

 

 

Weird isn't it? It's like having to pay Tesco for the right to shop in Sainsbury's.

 

The BBC should become a subscription funded organisation, and thereby either thrive or fall on the quality of its own content.

[urban.spaceman]

17 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Aside from the hilarity of someone saying Jeremy ****, was there really any need for "its usually men who say that" comment? You had a slip of the tongue, apologise and move on, no need make a sexist generalisation.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

The BBC is a public service?

 

In what way?

Supplying impartial news (and yes, people can laugh but I truly think it mostly is) and entertainment for members of the public who might otherwise be unable to afford it.

 

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Why is there/should there be a poll tax on TV ownership? 

I see you've clarified your stance on an alternative revenue stream above and I agree with it. I was taking issue with the idea that people were putting forward that there should be no licence fee, no public replacement funding, and therefore no BBC (as it is now), which I think would be a crying shame as I believe a public service broadcaster who is not entirely subject to the whims of corporate paymasters, ad companies and therefore where the money goes and whatever the populist cry of the day is, is a good thing.

 

30 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Weird isn't it? It's like having to pay Tesco for the right to shop in Sainsbury's.

 

The BBC should become a subscription funded organisation, and thereby either thrive or fall on the quality of its own content.

See above. There should always be at least one public information/news service that is at least partly immune to the monetary and other effects of public opinion simply because if all platforms were as specified here people may well only hear what they want to hear, and not what they sometimes need to hear - that's what people mostly pay money for when it comes to such things, after all.

Edited 11 June 2019 by leicsmac

[Alf Bentley]

https://news.sky.com/story/kims-murdered-half-brother-was-cia-informant-report-11739451

 

Interesting.....suggestions that Kim Jong Un's half-brother, assassinated at an airport allegedly on his orders, may have been in the pay of the CIA & other foreign agencies.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Supplying impartial news (and yes, people can laugh but I truly think it mostly is) and entertainment for members of the public who might otherwise be unable to afford it.

 

I see you've clarified your stance on an alternative revenue stream above and I agree with it, and it's one I agree with. I was taking issue with the idea that people were putting forward that there should be no licence fee, no public replacement funding, and therefore no BBC (as it is now), which I think would be a crying shame as I believe a public service broadcaster who is not entirely subject to the whims of corporate paymasters, ad companies and therefore where the money goes and whatever the populist cry of the day is, is a good thing.

 

See above. There should always be at least one public information/news service that is at least partly immune to the monetary and other effects of public opinion simply because if all platforms were as specified here people may well only hear what they want to hear, and not what they sometimes need to hear - that's what people mostly pay money for when it comes to such things, after all.

People will hear what they want to hear, regardless of whether there is a license fee or not. They don't have to watch the BBC, but they sure have to pay for it.

[Alf Bentley]

With all the fever over Tory & Labour shenanigans over Brexit, easy to forget that the EU has a big say in what happens: 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/11/eu-view-of-tory-leadership-candidates-deeply-critical-say-sources

 

To judge from this, if the Govt doesn't collapse by October, a No Deal Brexit might well be on the cards, whether we want it or not....

 

"“People in Brussels are fed up that the political class in the UK has gone a little bit crazy,” Jean-Claude Piris, a former head of the European council’s legal service said. British politicians seemed to have gone “on holiday”, since gaining the extension, he added".

 

"The idea of Boris Johnson in the European council is probably quite abhorrent to some EU leaders,” an EU source said. “Boris is known in foreign policy circles, certainly not respected. He’s also seen as part of a wider Trump world and no one wants that.”

The EU’s most senior civil servant, Martin Selmayr, once described a Johnson premiership as a “horror scenario”, classing him with Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump".

 

"For me it is very clear the odds of no-deal Brexit are more than half and clearly if Boris Johnson becomes prime minister the odds will go up again,” said Philippe Lamberts, a Belgian MEP and member of the European parliament’s Brexit steering group."

 

"Many in the EU would support an extension for what is known in Brussels as “a democratic event”, meaning a general election or a second referendum. Without that, Piris thinks EU leaders could say no to a further extension. “But even if they say yes. What would happen? There is an inability to solve this question in the House of Commons.”

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

People will hear what they want to hear, regardless of whether there is a license fee or not. They don't have to watch the BBC, but they sure have to pay for it.

If that were true, there wouldn't be such a clamour by some folks to scrap the licence fee in the first place. I daresay there would be less complaints from those complaining if the Beeb fed them stories and other stuff that they agreed with.

[Countryfox]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The usual argument for high pay from those on the right is that it is market forces - and that the market price for exceptional talent is exceptionally high.

 

Of course, you can argue about the value of Lineker or anyone else. Likewise, many people would question the value of the wages that LCFC pays to its players and senior staff.

 

Perhaps get Martin Keown to host MOTD on half the pay? 

Or employ some bright lad/lass on the minimum wage and give the money saved to pensioners?

There might be a few objections from the public, though.... 

 

 

I would definitely get a bright young person with good knowledge and personality on a fixed contract then someone new to replace them at the end of the contract ...  great opportunity for new talent and a breath of fresh air from Mr opinionated smug chops ...    can’t see ratings being affected one jot. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Countryfox said:

 

I would definitely get a bright young person with good knowledge and personality on a fixed contract then someone new to replace them at the end of the contract ...  great opportunity for new talent and a breath of fresh air from Mr opinionated smug chops ...    can’t see ratings being affected one jot. 

 

I'd definitely do that to replace Keown. But then I'd replace him with Jimmy Savile's corpse and consider it an improvement.

 

Might be useful to keep Lineker rich, though. Never know when LCFC might need someone sympathetic to offer a bail-out, if Top gets drunk in his own duty-free shop and alienates the King of Thailand or something. 

[Countryfox]

2 hours ago, Vince Vega said:

 

I may be wrong on this, so feel free to correct me, but i don't think we can compare Gary's £1.75m with Graham Norton's £600k.  I understand that Norton's £600k is the amount the BBC is paying him directly (for radio etc.) and it doesn't include the amount he receives from the BBC via his share of the So Television company, who produce his TV show. 

 

You may well be right ...   I’m only using Norton as an example ...    is Lineker THAT important to the show that he commands such a large fee ...   I think not.   I know he does other things for the beeb but they should be looked at separately imo.   Norton on the other hand to me does justify his salary as he is his show and makes it what it is ..