I Wonder...

An article from the BBC on fuel poverty today got me wondering. An increasing number of people are now in fuel poverty, sitting in cold homes because they can't afford to turn the heating up, or having to eat less food so they can heat their homes. when money is tight, people have to cut back on non-essentials to pay for the essentials.

Fuel poverty is defined as where someone spends more than 10% of their household income on heating their home. Note the %? It's variable, depending on the income. The TV licence is not. £10 per month for life; well until the BBC shmooze the government again and it increases yet again, for a subscription to a mainstream entertainment service you can't cancel, even if you don't watch it.

Subscriptions to entertainment services are just one example of where people cut back to save or prioritise money.

So I wonder:

• How many of these people officially classed as in fuel poverty have a TV licence.
• How many of these people now sit in fear of the doorbell in case it's a Capita employee for the TV licence money.
• How many of these people will end up in court or jail for not paying their TV licence.
• How many of these people would consider it "value for money".
• How many of these people would cancel the BBC if they could.
• How many of these people appreciate Mark Thompson's assurances that "nobody is interested in learning about salaries", while on his own £800,000 salary.
• How many of these people agree with the idea that "you must pay the best to get the best".
• How many of these people appreciate the fact that most of the BBC output is mainstream commercial content in nature, designed to pull audiences from other commercial providers.
• How many of these people appreciate that Mark Thompson pays the same for his TV licence on a salary of £800,000 as they do, he may even get his free as a perk of the job.
• How many of these people see that the TV licence is flawed in the same way the Poll Tax was; a flat fee regardless of income or ability to pay.
• How many of these people think the BBC is "on their side" when it's funded by an unfair tax.

Anyone who claims it's "good value for money" is trying to spend YOUR money for you. Only YOU have the right to decide that. Often the people who say that are at least comfortably well off, and can afford to go buy a major new electrical device at the drop of a hat, or book a week abroad, shove it on the credit card and watch as it gets lost in the middle of loads of other transactions for car payments, mortgages etc The point is they are well enough to have the ability to spend on a whim, without planning much ahead. Just sign the Direct Debit and forget about it. It might only be Xp per day, but that should be YOUR choice on how to spend it, not theirs.

The people who do consider it "good value for money" and are willing to pay for what they get can do so. It wouldn't be the same price however, as the price is designed to be spread out across a LOT of people who can't afford it but have no choice. If there was a choice, a LOT would unsubscribe, pushing the price right up as it'd have a LOT less people spreading the cost. Then would they consider it "good value for money?" Some would, but many others wouldn't.

This is NOT the same daily experience for many. Many people have had to cut back on as much as they can to make ends meet. They have to move money from one place to another, knowing bills are overdue. They have to delay buying stuff they really need to pay for the most urgent things. They have to work out exact days for payments to try and ensure enough money in their accounts to cover a payment. In short, they need every £ they can squeeze, so £10 per month for an entertainment service is not likely to be considered "value for money" to them.

If you have £20 spare each month before the TV licence and after paying all your family bills to act as petty cash for little extras, that £10 is a 50% of that spare cash. If you have £200 spare in the same situation, £10 is only 5% of it. Income does matter.

The Thatcher government was brought down by the people refusing an unfair tax and her being unwilling to bend to reason; well a tax that benefits the rich and penalises the poor. The BBC still have the same unfair tax 20 years later. What makes it worse is the fact that there's so much competition in full flow that there's no excuse for the BBC to compete.

Don't worry though, the BBC top brass are "the best", so they know the game is up. They're also upstanding honest people who have the licence fee payers interests at heart, so they wouldn't try to extend their time at the trough to enrich themselves, as people sit in cold homes, hungry with a TV licence inspector knocking on the door.

Please note this post has elements of sarcasm......for those who are unable to tell the difference.