News: 1585743605

HEh!

Unfortunately even if it was, I wouldn't be at all surprised at the suggestion of such a levy.

Sadly not. The BBC's problem is it wants to keep it's jacuzzi filled. If public service broadcasting were changed to a 'free' channel + subscription option, it risks losing some percentage of the almost £5bn a year it makes from the combination of licence fee + commercial activities. That's also a challenge given cross-subsidisation, ie how shows like say, Dr Who are financed. So how much is funded by the licence fee, and how much from commercial activities.

It's one of those areas where Beebonomics ties itself into complicated knots. It claims to have saved millions in 'real cash' terms, it claims to have cut millions in costs, it's commercial tentacles have been vital in keeping the licence fee down.. Yet the licence fee keeps increasing, and the BBC keeps demanding more.

But it's argued for a continuation of it's current regressive funding model for years. Shifting it's funding to a tax on broadband or electricity would obviously increase the costs of those services, not to mention conveniently removing any currently legal avoidance. I have no desire to fund the BBC*, so don't watch it, and don't have any stuff installed or operated for any purpose under the current law. I certainly have no desire to be forced to fund it.

A logical solution is to pare back the BBC to a PSB channel, so free to air news & current affairs, and maybe some entertainment. Fund that from taxation, and let people who really do value the BBC pay £10/month for the extras. The BBC has spent millions on market research to claim how much the public values it, and in some cases value it higher than the current licence fee amount. So if that's true, those people would be more than happy to voluntarily pay Aunty. Based on it's own research, it has nothing to fear.

*Initially due to the heavy handed way the BBC's goon squad tried to enforce collection, subsequently due to realising it's dishonesty wrt climate change and energy. And amusingly, it's starting to appear a little sceptical regarding Covid modelling, dodgy stats, and misplaced trust in 'experts'..

There's a lot of disinformation regarding what the BBC has control over. When the license fee is set, the BBC board pitch how much they think they need under A, B and C scenarios and the government can pick and choose what they fund. The license fee is set by the government, not the BBC.

The enforcement officers are not employed by the BBC, the beeb has no control over how they enforce the license fee payment. They also don't get money back from the commercial activities you're talking about, that money goes to BBC Worldwide who do not share back funding.

There's a lot of disinformation regarding what the BBC has control over.

Indeed. Often provided by that esteemed organ itself..

The enforcement officers are not employed by the BBC, the beeb has no control over how they enforce the license fee payment.

Utter bollocks..

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

The BBC is responsible for the sale & collection activities, as that Act shows. The BBC does however like to hide behind the veil of 'TV Licensing' even though that's just the collections wing of the BBC. As the only entity legally able to collect payments, it obviously has full control over how that's achieved. Ok, it does that by subcontracting to the likes of Crapita, but they can only act under the authority of the BBC.

They also don't get money back from the commercial activities you're talking about, that money goes to BBC Worldwide who do not share back funding.

More bollocks-

https://www.bbcstudios.com/about/about-us/

But we also assist the BBC’s public service mission by reinvesting our profits back into the BBC. Over the last seven years, we’ve generated revenues of £1.4bn and returned £200m annually to the BBC Group.

Although that's again back to Beebonomics and financial engineering. Again if it's commercial activities and sale of licence fee paid content were so stellar, then the licence fee could be reduced, not continually increased.

Funny how that works, every year the commercial tentacles grow, but never enough to reduce the tax..

They also don't get money back from the commercial activities you're talking about, that money goes to BBC Worldwide who do not share back funding.

Yes, but that's a chosen internal structure rather than two actually separated entities that require to be separated.

I can very easily split myself into Lout (uk), Lout (my living room), Lout (bathroom inc) etc, but in reality my reasons for doing so are fictitious. BBC has a massive back catalog, which despite having been paid by us to make, it insists is a commercially separate entity and so we must pay again for box sets of things we already paid them to make.

The future of the BBC as a whole unit is purely commercial, which is how it has chosen to manifest most of its interests, simply because much of the public no longer trust it, they no longer value it, the output isn't high enough quality in many cases, and the price is disproportionate (guardian TV passes for the News at Ten, its days as the Blair Broadcasting Corporation, its 24x7 British Broadcasting Corbynism of recent years).

BBC voluntarily used to discipline Clarkson for minor transgressions such that he was on a final warning by the time he did something that should have been disciplined, and had to be sacked, thereby losing the corporation £x00M's. That's hundreds of millions I'm simply not minded to make up, so they're going to need to live on less.

Like most of the public sector, the BBC wastes money hand over fist because if they don't spend it all every year then they may not get it again the next year. There's no drive towards operational efficiency, self sufficiency, and no focus on why they exist.

Its the 3 P's. Pay -> Pensions -> Provision of services. All UK public sector entities get that backwards. You can only spend a pound once, so the focus needs to always be Provision of services -> Pay -> Pensions.

Sorry Auntie, I've got no sympathy and nor do most folks.... especially not when I can get Netflix for a lot less per year.

Everything keeps on increasing, like Sky, who have led the complaints about the BBC licence since they first broadcast.

The BBC coss £3 a week, Sky at least treble that, before paying extra for every sport they show.

@ Jellied Eel:

+1 for "Beebonomics" :)

If they're going to apply the licence fee to broadband, then the BBC ought to provide some kind of internet service comparable to their tv and radio offerings of the last few decades.

For a while, the BBC did offer it's own xDSL service. Which was rather expensive, and had few users, so dropped a few years back. It's also one of those strange things where it may have made sense given the number of remote staff, and a better ability to manage things like contention.

You mean all their internet based services for example?

If the BBC (as they claim) are this national treasure which everyone wants to preserve, then I see no problem with them becoming a subscription service.

Their own poll suggests that they would have enough willing punters without resorting to being propped up by another business sector.

Or a best of both worlds.

Keep the fee to pay for BBC news and make "celebrity strictly come dancing in the jungle on ice" a subscription.

Then the government would be assured there was fair and unbiased reporting of their triumphs, rather than having to rely on the dailyMail and Fox news, without the taint of popularism

... on a proposal that has [1]already been examined and found wanting.

There is clearly an issue of how the BBC should be funded (if at all) in the longer term. In the absence of a concrete proposal for future funding, there is no value in simply undermining the system that currently exists, except as a means of exerting political pressure on the BBC.

If the BBC is to continue, it can only be on the basis of some form of taxation (and the licence fee is just a form of taxation). Most of those boutique TV production companies that arose from the requirement to commission independent third-party content are now just part of vast international conglomerates. Even Murdoch has thrown in the towel. The BBC is just too small to survive in the commercial market.

The BBC needs the economies of scale it gets from charging a large number of people a relatively modest fee - it's the only way it can provide the range of output that it does. If it becomes a subscription-based service, it will be asset-stripped of its back-catalogue and shut down within a couple of years. Personally, I think that would be a shame - at this time above all others we should hopefully be able to see that the value in our shared assets, whether it is the BBC or the NHS, is precisely the fact that they're shared.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445212/166926_Perry_Review_Text-L-PB.pdf

... on a proposal that has already been examined and found wanting.

Obviously not. The Perry Review had a wider remit, but the fact that there's a current consultation stems from some of the issues raised by that review, and subsequent developments.

The consultation is pretty narrowly defined though, ie pretty much if the current system is decriminalised. That's not without risks. Currently the BBC's staff are commissioned based on licence sales and 'prosecutions', so there's a direct incentive to earn commissions. Which has lead to fraud & perjury. Or just profits, ie evaders may be fined, but also charged 'costs' and a victims surcharge.

Proposal's to make it a civil matter, and could be dealt with via a Fixed Penalty Notice. Perry reckoned the FPN should be £500 to have the same deterrent effect as the current 'up to £1000' fine + costs, but actual fines average around £170. So an FPN could mean a 3x increase in penalty, with no easy option to means test it. That makes it even more regressive than the current system.

And then if the BBC's enfarcement officers are allowed to issue FPNs, and earn commission on those, that might increase temptation to issue. And if that follows the same model as other FPNs, then it effectively reverses any burden of proof and increases the risk if you dare to appeal the FPN. Especially as there's usually no real evidence of any offence other than a confession. That of course could change if the BBC was required to show evidence from TV 'detectors', but those are currently only used to track low flying bacon.

There is clearly an issue of how the BBC should be funded (if at all) in the longer term. In the absence of a concrete proposal for future funding, there is no value in simply undermining the system that currently exists, except as a means of exerting political pressure on the BBC.

Well, the BBC exerts political pressure of it's own, so this is perhaps self-inflicted. Otherwise it's sensible to ask if the BBC really needs £150 per household per year, with a CPI+ index, even though most of it's input costs bear little resemblance to what's in the CPI basket.. Which ironically includes the cost of a BBC licence, making the tax both circular and regressive.

So long as it isn't politically motivated then.

Perhaps the Labour Party could suggest decriminalisation of bank robbery to address the over-financialisation of the UK economy

But there's something icky about the idea of medding with my access to the Internet.

That's how it works in France.

In France, with the option to say "I don't have a tv", so don't charge me. Check visits are made, but not by the likes of Crapita. (I only had 1 in my 7 years and I was out at the time, so tante pis!)

If the BBC really do think that 5 million viewer watch East Enders each week then simple make it subscription only and charge £5 each of the four episodes per week. That is worth around £5.2bn per year. That exceeds the £3.7bn they currently get. Add 50p for Antiques Roadshow and £1 for Question Time and they will be rich beyond their wildest dreams.

The reality is, the moment they charge for 'Enders, the viewing figures will drop like a stone. It is time the BBC had to earn their revenue and stop treating it as regular income with little justificaiton. And why do we pay for the BBC World Service?

You could ask the same questions about schools, hospitals, roads, museums, libraries, parks...

There are private versions of all of those things but they don't deliver a universal and comprehensive service.

And why do we pay for the BBC World Service?

We have always paid for it - largely because governments have seen a security benefit in getting positive messages about the UK to countries will state-controlled media. It used to be paid for by a grant from the Foreign Office, but the burden was transferred to the licence fee (along with the funding of over-75s) as part of the government's "magic money tree" mendacity.

The Licence Fee does NOT have a penalty of prison for non-payment. Prison is for non payment of fines - it's a contempt of court thing.

The Licence Fee pays for World Service and S4C both government things foisted on the beeb by government.

Consumers pay a darn sight more for commercial tv stations through adverts.

And newspapers cost far more per day than the License Fee!

Let the people who use the BBC pay for it and let everyone else get what they want without propping it up.

especially given the outrageous salaries some of the presenters are on, there's a cutback right there. Chris Evans and Gary Lineker over a million a year for starters

Chris Evans? Do the BBC pay salaries of Virgin Radio UK presenters?

Let the people who use the BBC pay for it and let everyone else get what they want without propping it up.

Sorry but that idea is fundamentally flawed. Channels 3, 4 & 5 are paid for by advertisements. Even if I don't have a television if something I buy has been advertised on television then a part of what it costs me goes to the advertising and television companies, notwithstanding the fact that not having a television means that I did not see the advertisement in the first place.

In short I would be "propping up the independents" even though I was not watching their (often horrible) programmes.

No point in replacing one wrong with another...

@Commswonk

"Sorry but that idea is fundamentally flawed. Channels 3, 4 & 5 are paid for by advertisements."

Thereby showing that the BBC tax should shove off. Unless the BBC is undesirable or incompetent it should be capable of continuing as all the other channels do.

"Even if I don't have a television if something I buy has been advertised on television then a part of what it costs me goes to the advertising and television companies"

And you choose to buy it. Not only that but if it has any costs they are incorporated in the price of the product/service you buy. So special little princess BBC has no excuse for the BBC tax.

"notwithstanding the fact that not having a television means that I did not see the advertisement in the first place."

And by not watching BBC people get robbed to support that singular protected source for obviously no good reason (as you have demonstrated with other channels).

"In short I would be "propping up the independents" even though I was not watching their (often horrible) programmes.

No point in replacing one wrong with another..."

Since the odd one out is the BBC it would be no point allowing such a wrong when others get by without the BBC tax.

To be honest 10 years ago I would have fought tooth and nail for the BBC to remain as it was, but these days they produce very little of interest to me. I value BBC2s QI and Mock The Week, and series like The Planets, but the dramas leave me cold as does almost the entire content of BBC1, 3, and 4. I haven't listened to a BBC radio station for years (since John Peel died) as they just don't interest me any more. I used to love watching Top Gear but since they got Paddy McGuinness and his constant shouting and repeated "Ged In Thur" I'm now avoiding it as far too cringe-worthy.

I use the BBC News website as it's about as neutral and factual as a news site can get these days, and I judge that neutrality by the equally loud cries of "Bias" from both the Left and Right of the political spectrum. Compared to Fox, Sky, CNN, etc. it's a gem.

I do watch Dave quite a lot as it has Red Dwarf and other original comedy (as well as lots of repeats of BBC shows), but that is the commercial arm of the BBC and not funded by the License Fee.

The way I look at it is that it's not as good as it was but I'm still getting enough out of it to make £3 a week a bargain.

I wouldn't have a problem if they simply took it as tax, but I lean towards being a commie and don't feel aggrieved at having to pay taxes.

I see the issue as mostly an ideological and political bandwagon to close the BBC down, driven by those who would benefit most through achieving that.

No it doesn't (or at least it shouldn't). The fee is due from those that receive and make use of television broadcasts (whether over the air of or over the wire these days). It's perfectly legal to have a receiver in on the premises without needing a license, provided it isn't used to receive and make use of broadcasts, and the onus is on the licensing authority to prove it is used for that if they think so. So a TV repair technician (if any such still exist) that only uses synthesised test signals wouldn't in principle need a license for the workshop premises. However arguing the point with the jobsworth outsource that collects the fees might be rather a marathon.

> It's perfectly legal to have a receiver in on the premises without needing a license, provided it isn't used to receive and make use of broadcasts, and the onus is on the licensing authority to prove it is used for that if they think so.

There are supposedly a lot of rules, but try telling that to the beefy looking fellas (with the proper ID) who barged their way into my student bedroom (Where my girlfriend was in bed no less) to start harassing me about a portable CRT that was a snes-dedicated display with no aerial cable in the room anyway. Despite telling them to fuck off and threatening to call the police they said there'd be a letter going out. Joke's on them all my student mail got stolen.

1) Why should someone who doesn't watch the BBC be forced to pay through their internet connection charge?

2) Why should only the BBC be subsidised to provide a streaming service*?

3) Will this only apply to domestic / consumer connections, or is that connection to a road-side data collection node also going to "contribute"?

* Especially when the other providers provide better content outside of news, current affairs and the like.

Why should somebody without kids be forced to pay for schools?

Why should somebody in London be forced to subsidise a ferry service in the Shetlands ?

Why should somebody who doesn't enjoy rough sex with sailors be forced to fund the navy or Prince Andrew ?

The BBC is an entertainment service. Nothing more. It's an outlet for terrible soap operas and even more terrible gameshows. It's not a school. It's not a hospital. I don't mind paying a little for your kids (and everybody's kids) to go to school - I do object to paying for you to find out what happened to Phil and Sharon (if they're still a thing) this week.

It is imperative for the BBC to remain free from constraints necessary for keeping advertisers and private owners happy. Also, it should feel only the lightest touch of government oversight.

The BBC has been an obvious target for neo-liberal privatisation for a considerable time. Powerful commercial interests have lobbied for emasculation of the BBC ever since Mrs Thatcher promoted the sterile, now disastrous, neo-liberal idea that the private sector always provides services better than publicly owned facilities. The BBC is regarded as 'unfair competition' by private concerns reliant upon monopoly practices sanctioned by copyright; describing that as disingenuous is to put it mildly.

Present circumstances arising from the (grossly overreacted to) pandemic have destroyed plans by Johnson and his chums to further dismantle the NHS, to castrate the BBC, and insinuate 'monetisation' of everything in sight into popular conception of proper governance. Their revered saint, the late Ayn Rand, must be shedding tears of toxic blood. The pandemic has smashed Mrs Thatcher's dictum of there being no such thing as society; deep interdependence of individuals, institutions, and commercial enterprise is evident to all.

Johnson, as always the opportunist, shall perceive where his best interests lie. They no longer those of his wealthy masters and in hitching the UK's wagon to the USA. Serendipitously, exit from the EU, done for the wrong reasons, turns out greatly to our advantage and to Johnson's. Both the EU and the USA face, for differing reasons, meltdown of core assumptions. One thing is certain, the USA's cocked-up healthcare system is demonstrably not fit for purpose and no exemplar to the rest of the world. It's unlikely informed UK citizens can be persuaded to look with favour on the American way of doing broadcasting and Internet streaming of 'content'. The BBC is a hive of creativity both with respect to 'content' designed to please/inform across the educational and cultural spectrum, and to technological innovation; anyone unclear about the latter need look only at BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds.

The ultimate irony lies in strong possibility of Johnson, knave though he be, receiving credit for reversing 'Thatcherism' and for incidentally meeting a Labour pledge to take the homeless off the streets.

The BBC offers a good* range of services and no private subscription will have it taking in the money it does presently, unless it snaps up the obscenely pricey sports rights that Sky(& BT, Amazon etc) presently have.

Public funding of the Beeb is IMO a good thing, particularly for its local radio and news services, where everything else is being shut or sold to Reach PLC. It's international output is important for UK, where it is considered a benchmark of trustworthiness, however much of it's domestic output can test us sometimes. A broadband &pay TV levy isn't unreasonable, as long as it's automatic and not the existing shit.

The radio output is mostly solid and worth every penny, and is broadly incomparable. There is some shite, but no commercial broadcaster could be counted on to fill the depth or breadth of the void if we lost Auntie.

The TV output is mixed bag. It's a crime that BBC 3 was moved 'online-only' and is expected to return to broadcast soon. The output is generally better than the other PSBs(occasionally 4 or ITV might have something good) and their daytime is superlative to most other channels (important for elderly & vulnerable, particularly ATM). TV Drama is mostly on the up, but documentary/factual is clearly undercommissioned. A few presenters get too much. Cut the middle managers, commission more.

The online output is mostly good. The news site sometimes does nowhere near enough to distinguish between fact, fiction and opinion though otherwise good. The sport site is good and covers every sport I can think of. The stuff for kids/education is solid. The food site is excellent. The podcasts are great, a pity you can't get most on Google Podcasts. The BBC Sounds site is gradually improving, but still governed by ideologues. The iPlayer is a great site let down by a shortage of content. Again, cut the middle managers, commission more.

BBC owns UKTV(Dave, W, Gold, et al), this is good and profitable. The BBC owns BritBox (w/ ITV/4) - currently a bit shit and likely unprofitable - integrate it into current iPlayer, call it iPlayer Plus. Then you can make the case for a publicly funded basic service(Radio, Online, some TV) with a premium expansion. (Any premium offering needs to be the same internationally - then Netflix can actually have a challenger)

*It's mostly fine. The TV content is highly variable, most other stuff is great.

I think the tax should shift to the subscription services. It seems fair to squeeze a few % off their profits in order to pay for a free-to-air, advertisement free set of basic channels for those who choose or are forced by circumstance NOT to pay a media subscription. I mean, if The BBC disappeared then people would be forced to pay for any TV at all. Of course if you did that, then the people who choose not to pay for a subscription service are getting something for nothing then, which seems even more perverse that the present system. The price of The BBC is as low as it is purely because of the numbers of people who pay for it - essentially everyone. And those who say that ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 is free-to-air, you pay for those through the goods and services you buy. The take home message is there's no such thing as a free lunch, so why get all het up about the way The BBC is funded, really? It's not like you're forced to watch it, so it can't be that you disagree with the output. I'm paying for loads of stuff I don't use and other stuff I don't agree with through various other taxations - it's just more visible with the TV License Fee. I barely ever watch ITV for instance, but tot up the penny on a packet of cornflakes over a whole year, and it's costing me a fair bit - I'm not baying at the door of ITV house asking to be let off, am I?!

..... Requires No Prisoners, Slaves or Stragglers, so Any and All Found There be Lost

Does the BBC then also become an Asset of Broadband users for Broadband user use rather than Being Imagined Solely for Dull Blunt Government Tools PreProgrammed to Fool All and Sundry Faultlessly with Other Immaculate Fault Riven Narratives for you to Visit and Explore, Experience and Expand Upon without such Breaking News breaking the news. ‽

You know ..... Something Simple to Follow .... which one does not necessarily need to have any prior knowledge or great understanding of ..... that Shows the How and the Why and the Wherefore AI and IT Create Future Presentations for Vital Virile Virtual Network Realisations.

Wow ...... a Real World Virtual Solution that Can Easily Work .... just as it can both practically and virtually anywhere ...... which, just in case you missed it, is therefore everywhere.

Now that is one hell of a massive great space place where one gets to exercise and play with Almighty Global Operating Devices able to enable the doing of anything smart one might wish to be easily done.

And a Highly Commendable and Most Recommendable IT Program it is Too ....... although whether primarily a Project of human or alien form for overall governance with remote command and ethereal control, is something which exercises a Many Great Few into proving the answers received and given as perfectly correct and already proceeding ...... and leading. :-) ‽ :-)

Float that to the BBC Board and observe whether drawbridges go up or new services are slated to suddenly randomly appear with histories shrouded in the mysteries which protect and server one's times at the helm of the future in such a Rich Era and Reich Area ....... for here is one informed such is Always Immediately Available Allowing Possible to Progress and Proceed to Certainly Probable and Most Definitely Most Definitively Virtually Practically Guaranteed Never Ever to Fail Other than FailSafe.

Surely that is quite inviting and tempting? :-) Why ever would anyone/anything say .... "No Thanks, not interested?" ........ other than imagining they have superior handles of firm command and control with an alternate system competing against or simply opposing new blooded ideas and almighty powerful notions.

Words Create, Command and Control and Destroy Worlds ....... and why one would practice the trailing latter rather exercising any or all of the three prime formers is a disgrace which humans appear to employ and endure, exercise and exploit. That's surely most weird. Is it a Certifiable Sign of Madness to the nth degree?

BBC 4 and Radio 4 are virtually the only broadcast channels that I bother with. Remove them and dumb us all down to Netflix thicko programming and I will be out of it all because no way am I paying for the chav based streaming channels.

I dont watch sky sports.. therefore I've no need to subscribe to them, no net flix, amazon etc etc ect

I dont watch bbc therefore I'm forced to pay for it under threat of a prison sentence... come on guys.... this is the 21st century

If the beeb is convinced their output is worth watching, put it on subscription and those people who want to watch it can pay and watch, the same model as net flix, amazon et al.

Just kidding. Keep paying for the government propaganda and paedophilia branch. Do it for the kiddies.

I must say how depressed I am at the "you can't opt out of taxation for schools, the NHS, etc" argument. The TV licence has *degenerated* into a tax, whereas when the BBC had a monopoly, it was simply a fee.

Schools and the NHS are *essential* things that any government should be doing. TV is not. It is entertainment. The best way to do it would be to split the BBC into the 'TV for Consumers' arm, and make them have ads like the other channels (hence no need for the licence to raise money), who IMO, they have degenerated into being no better than.

The other issue is the cost, a one-size-fits-all when nowadays, much of the BBC's output literally isn't worth watching; at a massive £3-4 a week (for a minimum wage earner that *is* massive), one is forced to continually pay for rubbish just to get the few gems; since the BBC is no longer special, it's time it was disestablished and made to pay for itself; in which case, it should realise that no commercial entity would be allowed to get away with that.

For the rest, such as the World Service ... well when I can stop laughing at the idea that the UK is still a Power of World Importance (tm), maybe HMG should pay *that* from the FO's budget :)

I guess the bottom line is that the BBC is no longer the paragon that it was and shouldn't therefore be allowed to keep the privileged position that it was only permitted due to being one.

Time has caught up with you, BBC; now here's your coat - there's the door!

...but trim it back.

Let's put it in context

Q: Why not keep it public owned, but funded by ads

A: It exists already. It's called Channel 4

Q: Why not be pure subscription like Netflix or Disney?

A: And what about Radio and Websites? Do we shut all the Radio stations down, or are the subscribers expected fund everyone else?

Q: Why not have a mixed subscription for old content.

A: It now exists, it's called BritBox

Q: Why not sell all the services oversea

A: Same reason you can't get the same content on Netflix et al across all regions. Licensing. Some things like background music can mean you are dealing with dozens of licensing agencies.

I'd personally like to see it kept as it is, but trimmed back, including the "stars", you don't need to pay the like of Lineker or Clare Balding, when there are others who are just as good, if not better out there. Stop the "we have to pay the market rate". No you don't. If they want to leave, let them. People don't watch the likes of Match of the Day to see the commentators. You could dump most of the social media rubbish, you don't have to tweet, Instagram or Facebook every single thing. Much of it is moving out of London and this should continue, you can get property for a fraction of the costs of London. If the stars don't want to relocate, then goodbye. If famous stars don't want to visit for interviews, so be it. They will be the ones not getting free publicity for whatever book or film they are trying to flog.

You only have to compare CBBC and CBeebies to pretty much every other childrens channel in the world to see what the funding does.