THE BBC TV licence fee debate has sparked ferocious backlash amid calls to scrap the payment altogether. The current system has been facing heavy criticism for years.
The number of people declaring they did not require a licence reached 1.96m in 2021 to 2022. That works out at 270,000 more people than usual – I was one of them, saving myself £159 a year.
To those demanding a change to the system, I say be very careful what you wish for you are playing right into the BBC/Government’s hands.
My prediction is the current “opt out” option that 1.96m of us have taken will be reversed.
If anyone believes the BBC fee will be scrapped or a subscription service implemented, then sorry to burst your bubble, neither will happen.
[This has already been confirmed – see Report below].
The BBC used to be governed by the Royal Charter, this was scrapped in 2016.
Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries suggested earlier this year the BBC TV licence fee system could end following the next review.
But this statement is political double speak, when you realise the sleight of hand the “reviewers” look set to play.
Licence to Change BBC Future Funding Report
A cross-party group of House of Lords peers have warned a “bold new plan” is needed for the BBC.
The Lords Communications and Digital Committee have penned the ‘Licence to change: BBC future funding’ report, calling for the corporation to explain “more clearly” what it is for, and how it should be funded. It also suggested potential funding models for the future.
Ultimately, the report suggested the licence fee is not the only option for BBC funding. It added: “Our evidence was clear that many of the apparent advantages of the licence fee are under threat, and it has several drawbacks.
[Clearly, too many people have been able to opt out]
“Making the licence fee more progressive would be an improvement, as fees could be raised without disproportionately targeting those least able to afford them.”
Alternative funding options suggested in the report include advertising on the BBC, a subscription service, or ring-fencing income from a tax to spend on the funding. However, each of these options came under scrutiny, either for perceived lack of affordability, controversy, or fairness.
As a result, it was determined a model based fully on subscription or advertising would not work.
[Meaning the BBC would not survive in the real world].
Peers who devised the report suggested some form of public funding will remain necessary beyond the existing licence fee settlement.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston, chair of the committee, said: “The greatest threat to the BBC’s future isn’t a battle amongst politicians about the licence fee – though decisions about how it is funded are important to get right and becoming increasingly urgent.
That’s why the Committee concluded that, when it comes to what the BBC does, the status quo is not an option.” Read here
It is clear the politicians are fighting for the survival of their state broadcaster, as the people leave the failing biased corporation in their droves.
It is my prediction that Nadine Dorries and the out of touch House of Lords crusties (“the reviewers”) – will add the licence fee on to the Council Tax Bill, with those in higher bands paying a bigger monthly fee.
Can you imagine any other service provider charging you more for a TV service based upon the value/banding of your home?
A home in a higher banding does not equate to wealth or higher income – something politicians consistently fail to understand.
This would mean the BBC Tax becoming compulsory – to be paid by every British Household including those who don’t have TVs.
Council tax is a charge paid to your local Council for local services not designed to prop up a failing state broadcaster who simply cannot hack it in the modern world.
The people called for the abolition of the BBC licence fee, the state look set to dish up a compulsory tax.
Is this acceptable?
Is it lawful?
Are they stirring up a hornet’s nest?
What do you think?