The beginning of the end for the BBC...

Post translated above.

 

Nor are there any surprises or stings in the tail for the government or pensioners then. This outcome was obvious at the time. The government put in place no safeguards to ensure the BBC kept funding licences for Over 75s or that it didn’t set qualifying criteria which ended up costing the taxpayer more overall. The pitiful messaging from the government now, about its ‘expectation’ the BBC will keep funding it, is weak and detached from reality.

By foreign language stations, I presume you mean the World Service offerings? That’s another case of the BBC being lumbered with the cost of something and left to make decisions the public would expect its government to take. Previously funding for those came from the Foreign Office directly. It was part of ‘brand UK’ (and, during the Cold War, a method of getting propaganda out too no doubt) to get our trusted news to parts of the world we wanted to influence. That cost was transferred to the BBC itself in 2010 by Osborne to start moving things off the books to artificially reduce the deficit. The benefit of having such stations was recognised in the 2015 strategic defence review. Do you still want rid of them?

 

In the BBC's defence, it did have this highly entertaining story on its website today....

Squirrel-eating men at Soho vegan food stall fined

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49084466

 

So why was the BBC's decision made and announced then. If it had already been decided then there was no need for the decision.

You know full well, that several concessions were made to transfer the ownership of the OAP's concessions to the BBC. Hall is now saying many things, but he is not denying that the initial intention was to take on the burden of the OAP licence fee beyond the current term.

They didn't make any savings at all in the first few years of the agreement, and are spending for vanity. If they had made the effort, accepted they had to change, then maybe the government would have been more likely to meet them half way.

 

Lovely bit of squirrel.

 

The point of the junk TV on BBC is that by showing Eastenders followed by Planet Earth they can pull an audience of people who "don't realise" they would like science/history/etc and make them curious to go and learn more

 

I suppose the men that the squirrel was eating were organically raised.

Must have been a bloody large squirrel though. What was the fine? 1 stash of hazlenuts?

 

I wholly agree with the tone of your post. I have no experience of Dooley, so I can’t comment on her, but when it comes to so-called ‘reality’ TV I don’t understand why everything has to be a competition. I appreciate broadcasters will point to viewing figures and say they are giving the public what they want, in which case I despair of the public.
Of course you don’t have to watch these programmes and I don’t, but it certainly curtails the number of other programmes that might interest me.

 

Boris

Boris has a lot of ideas without solutions

 

They could cancel the ******* dancing programme for a start.

 

The deal struck in 2015 gave the BBC an increase on the licence fee and in return the BBC agreed to fund free licences for the over 75s - they now seem to be reneging on that agreement.
Personally I do not see why rich people get free TV just because they are over 75. What else should they get free due to their age?
If there is money spare it should go to poorer people whatever age they are.

 

I’m sure if that’s what the charter says, the government will have no problems holding the BBC to it.

 

I have not read the charter -only the BBC's own news report from July 2015

 

Did you see the bit that says, “Lord Hall and the chair of the BBC Trust, Rona Fairhead, were only told by the government a week ago that this was happening”?

It was presented as a fait accompli by the government. Nakedly political and a ridiculous way of running things.

As it is, the BBC has done what they said. They’ve agreed to carry on funding £200m+ of free tv licences for the poorest over-75s. The remainder left out of pocket should be asking themselves why it suited the government to move it off the DWP’s books and onto the BBC from 2020, rather than facing up to scrapping it themselves.

 

All I saw was that the BBC accepted it - I was not privy to how the negotiations were conducted - just that the BBC accepted it. I could see no mention of specifics about how long the funding would last, nor whether age 75 was sacrosanct.
I understand those not liking the Tories will use it as a weapon against them - even those who often are not highly complimentary of the BBC.
However there is a principle for me.
Public money is limited and I favour it going to those most in need. I know plenty of people over 75 who are wealthier than their own children as well as many others in society. I cannot explain to the poorer elements why I would want to give public money to rich old people and not to those who struggle.
However if it is a nakedly political way of running things it is poor politics as it is also more likely to hurt the Tories as it will be their rich elderly vote base that is hit most.

 

Well yeah, that’s why they needed someone else to take the blame for scrapping an increasingly indefensible concession. I agree with the cut and would have actually approved even if this government had been brave enough to propose it. Unfortunately it dodged it instead.

 

Agree with you there

 

Have to think if it was the blue button rather than the red button, the Tories would have found the cash to save it.