Tuesday 11th June 2019

[refitman]

Morning all.

[Willow904]

Morning.

Gus O'Donnell was on R4 talking about the BBC licence fee this morning. Apparently a company he runs was advising them. He pointed out if the BBC had taken on the full cost of the free licence fee it equated to 20% of the overall BBC budget so those who do pay would have got rather less for their money. As the BBC isn't in a position to decide who are the poorest pensioners they will use the pension credit to identify them but apparently 40% of people who qualify for pension credit don't claim it. He said one good thing that might come from this is that if poorer pensioners looking into how they can keep their free licence fee were to apply for pension credit then that would be a lot more money going to those who need it.
(And the government will end up coughing up after all, just in a different way, is the implication - certainly Gus O'Donnell seemed very keen on the idea this was an opportunity to increase pension credit take up ).

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ng-cartoon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

If Boris Johnson has decided to rein in his blustering buffoon act for the leadership campaign, will he be more liable to let slip his nasty, ignorant sides in interviews since he won't have the act to hide behind? And which audience will he feel it advantageous to play to - that of the first phases (ie the MPs) or the adoring Conservative membership which, with his eye on being in the final cut, he will need to "charm"?

[gilsey]

Morning.

Gus O'Donnell was on R4 talking about the BBC licence fee this morning. Apparently a company he runs was advising them. He pointed out if the BBC had taken on the full cost of the free licence fee it equated to 20% of the overall BBC budget so those who do pay would have got rather less for their money. As the BBC isn't in a position to decide who are the poorest pensioners they will use the pension credit to identify them but apparently 40% of people who qualify for pension credit don't claim it. He said one good thing that might come from this is that if poorer pensioners looking into how they can keep their free licence fee were to apply for pension credit then that would be a lot more money going to those who need it.
(And the government will end up coughing up after all, just in a different way, is the implication - certainly Gus O'Donnell seemed very keen on the idea this was an opportunity to increase pension credit take up ).

Every cloud and all that.

It's a stitch-up though, isn't it. The cost of the must have been taken into account at charter renewal, suddenly the Beeb has a chance to increase its budget by nearly 25% without subsidy or increasing the licence fee for the majority. No wonder they're so supportive of the govt.

[gilsey]

Good morfternoon.

If Boris Johnson has decided to rein in his blustering buffoon act for the leadership campaign, will he be more liable to let slip his nasty, ignorant sides in interviews since he won't have the act to hide behind? And which audience will he feel it advantageous to play to - that of the first phases (ie the MPs) or the adoring Conservative membership which, with his eye on being in the final cut, he will need to "charm"?

I find my interest in politics has deserted me when it comes to the tory leadership contest. Just get it over with already.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Angrier Kyle crazy high paid star is in the news (4,7).

[Willow904]

Morning.

Gus O'Donnell was on R4 talking about the BBC licence fee this morning. Apparently a company he runs was advising them. He pointed out if the BBC had taken on the full cost of the free licence fee it equated to 20% of the overall BBC budget so those who do pay would have got rather less for their money. As the BBC isn't in a position to decide who are the poorest pensioners they will use the pension credit to identify them but apparently 40% of people who qualify for pension credit don't claim it. He said one good thing that might come from this is that if poorer pensioners looking into how they can keep their free licence fee were to apply for pension credit then that would be a lot more money going to those who need it.
(And the government will end up coughing up after all, just in a different way, is the implication - certainly Gus O'Donnell seemed very keen on the idea this was an opportunity to increase pension credit take up ).

Every cloud and all that.

It's a stitch-up though, isn't it. The cost of the must have been taken into account at charter renewal, suddenly the Beeb has a chance to increase its budget by nearly 25% without subsidy or increasing the licence fee for the majority. No wonder they're so supportive of the govt.

My understanding is they would have lost a further 20% of their budget on top of an already reduced level of funding. The licence fee has been frozen now for a number of years. But I might be wrong, I'll check.

Edit: The licence fee was frozen between 2010-2017. A real terms cut. Since 2017 it has risen with inflation. With a rising population more people might be paying for a licence but a growing number of people are only watching online and therefore exempt so maybe not. Either way the £745m that the BBC would have to fund from next year to maintain free licences for all over 75s would definitely require some noticeable cuts to services. Funding those on pension credit will still cost around £250m potentially. It does seem a bit hard on those just over the pension credit cut off but such cut offs are always problematic. Wealthier older people watching a lot of tv would have been subsidised directly by younger (sometimes very poor) people often watching much less tv if the BBC had gone ahead and taken on the whole subsidy out of the existing licence fee funding stream. If the Tories wanted to keep the free licence for all older people they should have continued paying for it out of general taxation which, in effect, means wealthy over 75s would help to pay for their own free licences via other taxes.

[Willow904]

Good morfternoon.

If Boris Johnson has decided to rein in his blustering buffoon act for the leadership campaign, will he be more liable to let slip his nasty, ignorant sides in interviews since he won't have the act to hide behind? And which audience will he feel it advantageous to play to - that of the first phases (ie the MPs) or the adoring Conservative membership which, with his eye on being in the final cut, he will need to "charm"?

At the moment it seems like Team Boris is going for the rather safer option of not having him say anything at all!

[gilsey]

My understanding is they would have lost a further 20% of their budget on top of an already reduced level of funding. The licence fee has been frozen now for a number of years. But I might be wrong, I'll check.

I haven't looked into it, this is just basic maths. I assumed that as it was agreed at charter renewal, the BBC budget took it into account. 20% for the over-75 subsidy, 80% for everything else. Dump the subsidy and hey presto, look how much more money we've got.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Angrier Kyle crazy high paid star is in the news (4,7).

Quite a few people on social media saying "I like her more now"

[Willow904]

My understanding is they would have lost a further 20% of their budget on top of an already reduced level of funding. The licence fee has been frozen now for a number of years. But I might be wrong, I'll check.

I haven't looked into it, this is just basic maths. I assumed that as it was agreed at charter renewal, the BBC budget took it into account. 20% for the over-75 subsidy, 80% for everything else. Dump the subsidy and hey presto, look how much more money we've got.

Sort of I guess, but it's not really how it seems to me.

It seems to me the government was paying the licence fees of the over-75s and in 2020 they're going to stop which will make a big hole in the BBC's budget if they don't start charging some over-75s to fill it.

If the government felt the BBC's budget was too big, they could have reduced the licence fee, which presumably would have reduced the cost of the over-75s subsidy along with it, saving them money and forcing the BBC to cut spending and hence services. But they didn't choose to do that, they chose to stop covering the cost of licence fees of the over-75s.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... revolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[adam]

With apologies if I'm just catching up and this is all obvious, this from the guardian today is good on the context of the license fee decision.

The seeds of the licence fee decision lie in a secret deal struck in the immediate aftermath of the 2015 general election, when the Conservatives returned with an unexpected parliamentary majority.

With the Liberal Democrats no longer in coalition, an uninhibited Tory government moved fast to impose new spending controls – hashing out a new settlement with the BBC director general, Tony Hall, in clandestine talks that lasted just a week. Under the agreement, the BBC would receive some funding boosts in return for taking the potentially financially ruinous responsibility for providing services to the over-75s.

Osborne’s politically deft move was to shift not only the cost of the licence fees for the elderly on to the BBC but also, after a short while, the responsibility for deciding whether the benefit should exist at all. It was a win-win-win for the Conservatives: the BBC would be financially weakened, the Treasury would have more money, and the public would blame the BBC when the axe finally fell.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Except that, as I said last night, it might not be as clean cut as that.

Free licences for over 75s were after all started by the government of the day not the BBC, and many still associate them with that.

[Willow904]

Thanks Adam. The link in that article is very revealing and describes exactly how the BBC has been done over:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/ ... v-licences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He added that the promise to increase the licence fee by inflation was dependent on “the BBC continuing to do all of the things doing at the moment - that’s a big if.”

The financial impact of taking on the cost of free licence fees for over-75s will first be felt by the BBC in 2018-19, when it will amount to £250m. The financial commitment will be phased in so it will nearly double to £450m the following year, and rise to £750m by 2020-21.

So the BBC loses an extra £300m in 2020-21, which it can only fund by cutting services or charging over-75s which it can choose to from 2020, but if it chooses to cut services it risks losing the inflation-linked rises and hence faces a real terms cut.

If in the first year they absorbed the £250m by things like axing BBC 3, along with some radio and some online content etc, they will be able to shoulder the ongoing costs of some over-75s free licences from 2020 without cutting more services, but if they have to find an extra £500m a year on top that's a lot, that would mean axing quite a bit more and would they then lose out on the inflation linked licence fee rise because they are no longer delivering the services agreed in the charter renewal? That bit seems to be the killer punch in terms of limiting the BBCs options and the bit which won't be mentioned as the BBC gets the blame for Osborne's decision.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Well the BBC could always tell it how it actually is if they want to avoid blame, but they went irrevocably down the path of appeasement almost a decade ago.

[gilsey]

the BBC gets the blame for Osborne's decision.

That was always the plan, as with local govt.
Profoundly dishonest, like student loans.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Apparently Labour are trying to force a vote on 25 June that would completely rule out No Deal.

[gilsey]

Business of the House Motion (United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union)

(1) That, on Tuesday 25 June –

(a) standing order no. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;

(b) precedence shall be given to a motion relating to the business of the house in connection with matters relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union;

(c) if more than one motion relating to the business of the house is tabled, the Speaker shall decide which motion shall have precedence;

(d) the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings on any business having precedence before the business of the house motion at 1.00 pm and call a member to move that motion;

(e) debate on that motion may continue until 2.00 pm at which time the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on that motion including the questions on amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;

(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-mobility" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why Corbyn is right to ditch social mobility.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I thought this a very good piece. One great point is that social mobility presupposes that being working class is something to escape.

[PorFavor]

I thought this a very good piece. One great point is that social mobility presupposes that being working class is something to escape.

Quite.

[PorFavor]

Rory Stewart is not an idiot, and knows he's probably not even going to get through to the next round. I think he's positioning himself for the next Conservative leadership contest.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Rory Stewart is not an idiot, and knows he's probably not even going to get through to the next round. I think he's positioning himself for the next Conservative leadership contest.

Yes quite possibly.

Which hopefully won't be too far away!

[AnatolyKasparov]

It would be nice if one of the first to go out was McVey, though - she really wouldn't like it given that she is widely reported as being highly vain as well as extremely nasty.

[PorFavor]

Boris Johnson allowed arms sales to Saudis after Yemen bombing

Former foreign secretary accused of showing ‘total disregard’ for civilians

Campaigners accused the then foreign secretary of showing a “total disregard” for Yemeni civilians by allowing the sales, revealed for the first time in emails disclosed via a freedom of information request.(Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... od-factory

[PorFavor]

Drugs expert barred from policy panel after criticising Home Office

Minister vetoed appointment of woman who called Home Office drug policy ‘utter BS’

Documents released under a subject access request also reveal that candidates for public bodies now have their social media profiles scrutinised by ministers, including posts regarding the “PM/government”, Windrush, Brexit and anything “diversity-related”. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ome-office

[PaulfromYorkshire]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eal-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

what-is-labour-motion-against-a-no-deal-brexit

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Rory Stewart
‏@RoryStewartUK

For the avoidance of any doubt - I have read the Labour motion proposed for tomorrow and I will NOT be voting for it.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Rory Stewart
‏@RoryStewartUK

My opposition to No-Deal is unwavering - the best and securest way to take No-deal of the table is to vote for me to be our next Prime Minister.

[refitman]

For fans of The Fast Show

Tony.PNG (223 KiB) Viewed 4979 times

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RogerOThornhill]

I see the Telegraph are acting as if their star columnist has won it already...

Boris Johnson faces Remainer plot to thwart no-deal Brexit on day he launches leadership campaign



Wonder if there could be some tactical voting to stop him getting to the final two?