The positive influence of the BBC goes way beyond broadcasting

In all the coverage of the question of the future funding and perhaps break up of the BBC, I have seen no mention of one of the BBC’s towering achievements, which really is of enormous value to the country and the world. The BBC funds four major orchestras, various competitions for young musicians, schemes for the development of exceptional musical talent, and the broadcasting of live music in general. These are all world class and must be preserved.

Martin A Smith

Oxford

Objections to the licence fee are not in truth about money; they are political. Politicians such as Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, believe the BBC is biased towards the left because its centrist position does not represent their view of the world. But the BBC is remarkably even-handed in its political coverage, to the point of sometimes giving too much airtime to mavericks on the right in order to avoid accusations of left-wing bias. The licence fee system was designed precisely to keep the BBC free from political pressure.

Instead of the recently abolished system of free licenses for the over-75s, many of whom could easily afford the fee, the approach should always have been a means-tested system by which households of very modest income could be exempt. No one has yet suggested an alternative funding model for the BBC that does not have considerable downsides. In particular, the much-touted subscription model would probably require individual subscriptions for specific channels, with almost everything else falling by the wayside.

Segmentation into more popular areas such as news, sport, entertainment and popular music would not guarantee viability for the BBC against commercial channels in the UK and the US which have not only subscription income but huge revenues from advertising. Less popular segments such as classical music, serious drama and documentaries would simply not attract sufficient subscription revenues to be viable at all; but much of this output is central to British cultural life.

Yes, many young people don’t watch TV, and the whole media landscape is changing; indeed who knows where it will be in even 10 years’ time. But at present the BBC still attracts huge audiences for programmes such as Strictly Come Dancing, as well as sports coverage etc. Why destroy a successful broadcasting model widely admired throughout the world just because a minority of Tory MPs and their supporters object to left-wing comedians, socially conscious documentaries, or establishment-challenging investigative journalism?

Gavin Turner

Norfolk

Nadine Dorries wants to freeze the TV licence and ultimately change the BBC into a subscription service. It is obvious that this will detrimentally affect the output of the BBC, as minority interest programmes will be uneconomic to produce.

She rather emotively says: “The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over.” My recollection is that the Tories transferred the cost of providing free TV licences to over-75s from the government to the BBC thereby forcing the corporation to limit this concession to those pensioners receiving income support. It could therefore be reasonably argued that the Tory government is responsible if elderly people are threatened with the law.

Patrick Cleary

Gloucestershire

Speculation is rife about the cost and viability of the TV licence, not least as to how the less well-off would be affected by an increase, should the licence continue.

An admittedly very limited local survey revealed the following: four pints a month of the cheapest beer, £18.40; four packs of 20 cheaper cigarettes, £39. TV licence per month, currently about £14.50. Even if the current licence of £159 were to be doubled, making it about £26 a month, it would still be cheaper than the cigarettes. And how many beer drinkers have only one pint a week?

Pamela Hibbert

Berks

The defence that is being built for the prime minister rests heavily on his achievements in different spheres of government, such as the vaccination rollout, the furlough scheme etc. In all these, the bulk of the thinking, planning, execution and delivery was carried out by ministers, advisers and other personnel of the relevant departments. As it is a cabinet style of government with Boris Johnson as the head, the successes can be rightly claimed for him, but perhaps not directly attributable to him.

Likewise then, it should rightly be for Boris Johnson to answer for all the instances of Partygate, especially the many that occurred in Downing Street where he has direct responsibility.

Besides political leadership there is, to my mind, the more important issue of moral leadership. Lack of a moral compass, moral fibre and moral courage at the top of government all have consequences for the country in almost every aspect. If the leadership is immoral it gives licence to those who wish to do the unacceptable. More important and worrying, it becomes the default model for the young who look for direction and guidance.

Rosa Wei-Ling Chang

Sheffield

Boris Johnson let us know some time ago that he has a hobby of building model buses. Presumably, this provides him with ample opportunity to practise throwing people under them.

Dr Chris Lee

Chester

Regarding the various parties in Downing Street, do we know who paid for the booze? Could it have been claimed on expenses and therefore funded by the taxpayer, adding insult to injury?

Alan Pack

Kent

I cannot understand the reaction to a few people (gathered outside?) with a few drinks. Is that a party? These are colleagues who have been working hard together during long days throughout the Covid lockdown – if they had gathered around a coffee machine would that be classed as a party? Had they been drinking beer and chatting in another place other than their work place would that be worse? Well, that is what Keir Starmer did. He wasn’t in his general work place and mingled with people he probably hardly knew.

Why should Boris Johnson be held responsible for something the civil servants did? As for not telling the truth, he would have been damned for doing so and has certainly been damned for not.

Richard Bennett

Address supplied

Time and again our falling European birth rate is explained away for reasons such as “physical, financial or environmental” without evidence to support these theories (‘I’d rather have cats than kids – what’s selfish about that?’, 6 January). Has anyone bothered to ask us why we don’t have babies? Has no one also noticed a suspicious rise in numbers of single people?

Let me suggest another reason for our falling birth rate. Equality. One in three female university graduates born after 1970 will never have children. Why? We’ve been given independence that affords choices that previous generations of women never had. We don’t have to get married and rely on a man for financial support. But that freedom comes with consequences. Many of us never find a partner we want to be with for romantic reasons during our childbearing years, and consequently never have children. This is hugely regrettable and a sensitive topic for many of us, and it frustrates when journalists suppose unsubstantiated reasons for and apply labels to our childlessness.

Katrine MacMahon

Oslo