Keir Starmer keeping open mind on BBC licence fee axe
Addressing this, Culture Select Committee chair Dame Caroline challenged the Labour leader on the "regressive tax".
According to The Sun, when asked about the future of the licence fee yesterday, Keir Starmer said: 'We're going through the review and it'll obviously come to its conclusion, and we keep an open mind on what we need to do with the licence fee.
Keir Starmer said he was 'open-minded' about the future of the TV licence (Image: PA/Stefan Rousseau) "But we are working closely with the BBC.'
The TV licence is a fee paid by households that watch, record or stream any television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast.
The fee was introduced in 1946, when TV broadcasting resumed in the aftermath of the Second World War.
This licence was originally issued by the General Post Office, which was the regulator of public communications in the UK at that time.
According to the TV Licensing website, the price of the fee changed last April, seeing the cost of a colour licence rise to £174.50 a year.
The annual cost of the much rarer black and white TV licence is just £58.50.
Those who are blind or severely sight-impaired can apply for a 50% concession on this, meaning the colour licence costs £87.25.
There are also a number of other concessions and arrangements available for people living in certain types of residential care and for over-75s receiving Pension Credit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
30 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Angela Rayner calls on China to explain redacted images in super-embassy plans
Angela Rayner has told China to explain why parts of its plans for a new super-embassy in London are redacted. The Deputy Prime Minister, who as Housing Secretary is responsible for overseeing planning matters, has given Beijing two weeks to explain why areas of its plans for the sprawling new embassy site in central London are blacked out. China hawks in Westminster have raised alarm that the embassy site could be used to conduct surveillance from British soil. Pro-democracy campaigners from Hong Kong, as well as Uighurs and Tibetans, meanwhile, fear that intimidation and reprisals from the Chinese state could result from the embassy going ahead. This follows reports that bounties have been issued by China for dissident Hong Kongers now living in the UK. In a letter seen by the PA news agency, Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government asks planning consultants representing the Chinese embassy to explain why drawings of the planned site are blacked out. The letter gives two weeks, until August 20, for an explanation to be provided. It also suggests that a final planning decision on the embassy site, at Royal Mint Court, just east of London's financial district, will be made by September 9. Copies of the letter were also sent to the Home Office and the Foreign Office by email. It notes that the Home Office requested a new 'hard perimeter' be placed around the embassy site, to prevent 'unregulated public access', and acknowledges this could require a further planning application. Plans for the super-embassy were previously rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022, with the Chinese opting not to appeal. However, Beijing resubmitted the application a fortnight after Sir Keir Starmer's election victory last year, believing Labour may be more receptive to the application. Since entering office Sir Keir's Government has sought closer links with Beijing after a cooling during the final years of Conservative Party rule. The final decision will be made by Mr Rayner in her role as Housing Secretary. Alicia Kearns, the shadow national security minister, said: 'No surprises here – Labour's rush to appease Xi Jinping's demands for a new embassy demonstrated a complacency when it came to keeping our people safe. Having deluded themselves for so long, they've recognised we were right to be vigilant. 'The disturbing bounty notes urging British citizens to kidnap and deliver their Hong Kong neighbours to the current CCP embassy laid bare the risks – yet the Foreign Secretary didn't even summon the Chinese ambassador in the face of direct threats to those seeking refuge in our country. 'CCP ambitions for a larger embassy would only amplify opportunities for espionage and transnational repression.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
A long-term plan is needed to get the country out of its financial hole
SIR – Whether by raising income tax rates, a wealth tax or through less overt measures, the Government will try to extract more money from the people that it serves ('Reeves facing £50bn black hole as tax pressure mounts ', report, August 6). However, such measures risk being self-defeating. Those who are unable or unwilling to leave the country will bear the brunt of the tax rises. That includes standard and higher-rate taxpayers. Every pound the Government extracts from their bank accounts is a pound that cannot be spent on businesses that provide goods and services. Thus, businesses will take another hit which, in turn, will reduce their tax payments. Since the failure of the Truss administration, there has been no long-term plan to get the country out of its financial hole. Eventually, there will have to be one and it will likely involve curbing the insatiable appetite of government to control and spend. When such a plan sees the light of day we may be surprised at the boost it gives to confidence and investment. David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Labour dug itself a financial hole when it pledged not to increase National Insurance (NI), VAT or income tax rates. Instead of imposing VAT on private schools and possibly even on private health, a simple 1 or 2 per cent rise on NI and/or the basic rate of income tax would have solved the Chancellor's problems. Now she is having to cast her net wider – and creating more problems as a result. John Tilsiter Radlett, Hertfordshire SIR – Taxing jobs and taxing capital is not going to result in economic growth. Is it too much to expect a former Bank of England economist to grasp this? Patrick Loxdale Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SIR – There is a limit to which any economy can be taxed. The UK is at that limit. The British public understands this. It is plain that public sector expenditure must be cut to balance the books. Given the Government throws billions around like confetti – on the Chagos Islands, the immigration fiasco, welfare, public sector pay rises, excessive numbers of civil servants – there is much low-hanging fruit. The economy is being badly managed as never before. Enough is enough. Please can we have some economic sanity. Stuart Moore Bramham, West Yorkshire SIR – Having continually criticised the Conservatives for the last 12 months for creating a £22bn black hole in the public finances, I trust Labour will now be constantly criticising itself for doubling the deficit. Paul Webster Dyserth, Denbighshire
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
‘One in four councils could lose money' under Government's funding proposals
Around a quarter of councils in England could lose money under the Government's proposed reforms to how local authorities are funded, analysis has found. A report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the changes would create big 'winners and losers' as ministers attempt to address perceived unfairness in levels of core funding across the country. Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS added. The think tank said Camden, along with other inner London boroughs including Westminster, will have less money to spend on services even if they increase council tax by the maximum amount allowed. Whitehall will provide a minimum level of funding, a so-called funding floor, for council leaders during the changes, but the IFS said overall cash for inner London town halls would be 11-12% lower in 2028-29 in real terms. The paper said: 'Around one in four councils would see real-terms falls in overall funding under the Government's proposals, with around 30 on the lowest funding floors seeing real-terms cuts of 11–12%. Conversely, another one in four councils would see real-terms increases of 12% or more.' The changes, which will come into effect from next year, are being consulted on by ministers. The Government plans to create a new methodology to assess local authority needs relatively and factor in population and deprivation. It will also assess need for adult and children's services. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in 10 will see a fall in overall funding, while one in 10 will see an increase of 10% or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change. The changes will be phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. Kate Ogden, co-author of the IFS report and a senior research economist with the think tank, said: 'England has lacked a rational system of local government funding for at least 12 years – and arguably more like 20. It is therefore welcome that the nettle of funding reform is being grasped, and some councils will benefit substantially under the new system. 'But the changes will sting for those councils that are assessed to currently receive too high a share of the overall funding pot, and so which lose out from moves to align funding with assessed spending needs.' The proposals are criticised in the report as 'not particularly redistributive to poor, urban areas of England'. It cites South Tyneside and Sunderland councils being among those to lose out from the reforms as slow population growth is accounted for. The report added: 'It is somewhat surprising that, on average, councils in the most deprived 30% of areas would see very similar changes in overall funding over the next three years to those for councils in the middle 40% of areas.' It noted that rural areas, which feared being badly hit by changes, will benefit from a 'remoteness adjustment' which will compensate areas with higher needs due to being far from large towns. London will gain the least, with a cash-terms increase in funding of 8% in the next three years. Analysis by the London Councils collective has highlighted the risk of the funding 'dramatically underestimating' needs for local services in parts of the capital. It noted the city has the highest rate of poverty in the country when housing costs are factored in. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19%) are set to see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East set to see the smallest at 13%. However, the proposals have been criticised by youth charity the National Children's Bureau, which said it was 'significantly concerned' about the way the Government plans to work out needs for children's services. Ms Ogden added: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses. 'More generally, reform of council funding allocations is just one part of the financial sustainability puzzle. Efforts to reduce demands on, and the cost of providing, local services through reform and the use of new technology will also be vital.' A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind. 'That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services, with the IFS recognising that our changes will better align funding with councils' needs.'
