Do we need a Department of Culture, Media & Sport

[tubbystu]

AJS- said:

Nearly £3bn for the BBC - is that from the licence fee or general taxation? I suspect the latter.

From the licence fee and is the entire funding for dear old aunty.

[Sticks.]

AJS- said:

Dole scroungers and efficiency savings apparently. I just don't see that these will ever give us the billions needed to get into surplus, let alone reduce the tax burden.

Quite probably not, not without some growth and the subsequent increase in income. The tourism industdry employs people and brings in revenue, domestically and from abroad.

So if the Govt spends a little to bring greater benefit to us, and extra revenue, then it should imho. And compared to letting Vodafone off £6bn in tax for the sake of jobs (apparently) this looks like good value.

[rover 623gsi]

tubbystu said:

AJS- said:

Nearly £3bn for the BBC - is that from the licence fee or general taxation? I suspect the latter.

From the licence fee and is the entire funding for dear old aunty.

is the correct answer. the license fee money goes to the DCMS then it goes to the BBC. To be fair, there might be an efficiency saving if we just cut out the middle man, but it highlights that the fact thatwe cut the £7bn that goes to the DCMS then the biggest thing we will all notice is that BBC would have to start showing adverts and while it is not perfect I believe that the country as a whole benefits from the existence of the BBC.

[AJS-]

All sounds like classic hostage syndrome to me. We need the state to spend 50% of our GDP in order to make money, and have nice things.

This is the problem. Everyone wants to cut government spending in general but no one wants to cut anything specific, save for some abstract ideas of waste and some group of scroungers.

[vonuber]

How about we scale back the military.

[markcoznottz]

rover 623gsi said:

tubbystu said:

AJS- said:

Nearly £3bn for the BBC - is that from the licence fee or general taxation? I suspect the latter.

From the licence fee and is the entire funding for dear old aunty.

is the correct answer. the license fee money goes to the DCMS then it goes to the BBC. To be fair, there might be an efficiency saving if we just cut out the middle man, but it highlights that the fact thatwe cut the £7bn that goes to the DCMS then the biggest thing we will all notice is that BBC would have to start showing adverts and while it is not perfect I believe that the country as a whole benefits from the existence of the BBC.

We are moving beyond wether the BBC 'benefits' the population. That is not relevant. The BBC needs shutting down by Christmas, and all the good stuff archiving, the natural history programmes can be sponsored, ditto top gear and anything commercially saleable worldwide. News etc, forget it, there will be self funded services eg sky. I know why AJS started this thread, he is one of a group of people on PH who understand the s**t this country is in. If we think that riots in the street won't happen like in Greece then we are mistaken, and a group of overpaid luvvies in London are NOT more important than the future solvency of this country.

[ninja-lewis]

rover 623gsi said:

is the correct answer. the license fee money goes to the DCMS then it goes to the BBC. To be fair, there might be an efficiency saving if we just cut out the middle man, but it highlights that the fact thatwe cut the £7bn that goes to the DCMS then the biggest thing we will all notice is that BBC would have to start showing adverts and while it is not perfect I believe that the country as a whole benefits from the existence of the BBC.

Licence Fee revenues go into the Consolidated Fund (essentially the Government's main bank account) and then get disbursed. The same applies to the second biggest source of DCMS 'expenditure' - Lottery Grants. The money set aside from the Lottery revenue goes into the Consolidated Fund before being disbursed to the various bodies that hand out the grants (Big Lottery Fund etc). In either case, the DCMS role is relatively limited. The inclusion of these funds under DCMS is for accounting purposes really. Indeed the DCMS itself is a fairly small department - it is mostly a grouping of many Non-Departmental Government Bodies, including individual museums.

If you abolished DCMS, the savings would be about non-existant as most of its functions would be taken on by other departments. There were Ministers for the Arts and Ministers for Sport before DCMS (or it's predecessor Department of National Heritage) came along - they were simply part of other departments.

You have to be careful making comparisons to previous centuries. For example, in the 19th Century we had the Postmaster General with responsibility for telegraphs - no different to broadband today really.

Likewise the British Museum, British Library, National Gallery and others were all in State hands at the time. English Heritage traces it's history back to 1378 when an Office of Works was created in the Royal Household to maintain Crown properties.

It also has to be remembered that historically the Government was not the only arm of the State taking an active role in the Arts. Parliament had a bigger role by passing more than just Government-originated bills. The Royal Household still played a big role too - until 1968 the Lord Chamberlain was responsible for theatre censorship to give one example. We largely have the Victorians to thank for much of the legal framework that underpins the State's role in supporting the Arts and heritage protection.

[thinfourth2]

markcoznottz said:

We are moving beyond wether the BBC 'benefits' the population. That is not relevant. The BBC needs shutting down by Christmas,

So you want the BBC shut down but you want me to carry on paying the license fee?

Yeah jog on


the beeb is one of the very few things that I feel is value for money from our glorious leaders

[Johnnytheboy]

tubbystu said:

There doesn't seem to be huge wastages in there...

Do you think they'd separate out "wastage" as a little circle?

[petemurphy]

rover 623gsi said:

e.g.


The DCMS is the department with responsibility for the museums and galleries sector.

We:
•directly sponsor 20 museums and galleries
•fund Renaissance in the Regions, a programme to support England’s regional museums
•invest in museum and gallery education programmes
•co-fund and administer the DCMS/Wolfson Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund

Facts and figures

Eight out of the top ten UK visitor attractions are sponsored national museums. These are the British Museum (1), Tate Modern (2), The National Gallery (3), Natural History Museum (4), Science Museum (6), Victoria and Albert Museum (7), National Maritime Museum (9) and National Portrait Gallery (10). (Source ALVA).

so, eight out of the top ten UK visitor attractions are funded by the DCMS - that seems a pretty good deal to me

why not charge foreigners to visit the museums never understaood why nat his museum etc are free for them let alone us.

[Wadeski]

petemurphy said:

why not charge foreigners to visit the museums never understaood why nat his museum etc are free for them let alone us.

Well it wasn't before the late 90s.

Making them free was about encouraging those on low incomes to go with their kids (and therefore helping them learn outside of the school environment) and encouraging tourists. Its also bloody nice, compared to New York where a day out at galleries is bloody expensive.

[smegmore]

Are those numbers correct in the OP??

[petemurphy]

Wadeski said:

Well it wasn't before the late 90s.

Making them free was about encouraging those on low incomes to go with their kids (and therefore helping them learn outside of the school environment) and encouraging tourists. Its also bloody nice, compared to New York where a day out at galleries is bloody expensive.

would be nice if everything was free but we're in a recession - dont see why we dont charge tourists at least

[Mojocvh]

tubbystu said:

Somebody has to formulate and set the national standards which councils then work too.

Philanthropy in the 21st century means they usually get accused of tax dodging...



Graphic lifted from here http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/2...

There doesn't seem to be huge wastages in there. And £7bn is mearly 1% of the govt budget and whilst every little helps, metaphorically bigger targets are easier to hit - benefit spending levels being the current bete noire.

Be nice to have some time to go to those places ......

[markcoznottz]

thinfourth2 said:

So you want the BBC shut down but you want me to carry on paying the license fee?

Yeah jog on


the beeb is one of the very few things that I feel is value for money from our glorious leaders

I can't see where I said I want you to carry on paying?. The self sufficient parts can carry on, the archives rented off to sky/virgin , we cannot afford a state broadcaster, sad but true.

[Digga]

Twincam16 said:

jdw1234 said:

Tricky one.

Culture is an extremely important part of what makes London, London.

Not really necessary in the rest of the country as they don't have culture apart from Xfactor and football (rascist Northern comedians and the Bullring don't count as culture).

I can't work out whether you're joking or not.

The only true luxuries:

SEX.
MURDER.
ART.

(I can only afford two out of three.)

[thinfourth2]

markcoznottz said:

thinfourth2 said:

So you want the BBC shut down but you want me to carry on paying the license fee?

Yeah jog on


the beeb is one of the very few things that I feel is value for money from our glorious leaders

I can't see where I said I want you to carry on paying?. The self sufficient parts can carry on, the archives rented off to sky/virgin , we cannot afford a state broadcaster, sad but true.

So your saving would be to shut down the BBC and get rid of the license fee that payes for the BBC

So where is the saving or do you just want to see the BBC shut down as it is only that lefty st on BBC news 24 and the 6 o'clock news while completely ignoring the stuff that no commercial broadcaster would touch.

Without the BBC the UK wouldn't be one of the biggest players in the music industry and we certainly wouldn't have the depth of talent we currently have

[markcoznottz]

thinfourth2 said:

So your saving would be to shut down the BBC and get rid of the license fee that payes for the BBC

So where is the saving or do you just want to see the BBC shut down as it is only that lefty st on BBC news 24 and the 6 o'clock news while completely ignoring the stuff that no commercial broadcaster would touch.

Without the BBC the UK wouldn't be one of the biggest players in the music industry and we certainly wouldn't have the depth of talent we currently have

Worse case scenario the BBC will be the least of our problems. Better that it sorts itself out now than literally having its entire funding pulled. It's NOT, in spite of its own self importance the most important thing since sliced bks. It has lost so much sport since the early 1990's. But that's markets for you. Itv is self sufficient that was my point, sky could fill in for people who want massive choice. We all I'm sure would love to reminisce about the way things were, but if it comes down to keeping warm or watching the BBC il take keeping warm. Billions are still billions.

[3point14159key]

Mojocvh said:

Be nice to have some time to go to those places ......

Make the time for yourself then. You wouldn't regret it.

[3point14159key]

Itv is great at self-sufficiently broadcasting the televisual equivalent of puréed cardboard.