The BBC pays for the World Service.
The Foreign Office used to but that changed about a decade ago
Not entirely by the Foreign Office these days, but partly, part from advertising (outside the UK) and a few other sources i.e. not entirely licence fee: BBC World Service - Wikipedia
Everyone I know watches BBC News live regularly. All under 40
3 Likes
Are they 39? 
Seriously though I am talking as a majority, I didn’t literally mean zero people under 40 watch live news.
Recent YouGovs were showing that it’s basically 60+ boomer generation that still actively watch live TV.
Millennials and younger it drops off massively until you get to the 18-30 where it was 1 in 20 still watches live TV.
So if you take those that are under 40 who say they watch live TV and then take a sub segment of that watch the live news it’s in the minority.
There’s a great difference between actively watching live TV like Coronation Street, and tuning into live news when something is happening, for background TV, for morning or evening reports or for a general quick catch up on the news. It’s also very much online live as well, a lot of my colleagues will have BBC or Sky News live on their screens to check in on as and when needed.
These YouGov polls are flawed because they have a very traditional view of what counts as watching live TV. I do them regularly and “the news” isn’t always something you think of because it’s not a “show” to recall.
1 Like
What I’m saying is you need to not fall into the trap of because my friends/colleagues watch live news that that is the norm. As a majority young people don’t watch live TV anymore there’s plenty of studies showing this.
It’s very much a generation thing with millennials caught between the boomers and tiktokers in the stats at the ends of the chart.
And yes there’s a big difference between sitting down on the sofa at x o’clock waiting for the news to start on the TV.
And the I’ll occasionally watch this live 5 min news segment on my phone/tablet/desktop
I’m not falling into any trap, but so far my experience is that these studies are flawed and miss out on those who do watch live news. There is a reason so many news channels still broadcast live 24/7/365 at great cost. It’s not all because a couple of 60 year olds still tune in.
2 Likes
With the BBC it’s because it’s historically a gravy train with minimal accountability because it’s easy money to play with. They have just been doing the same old thing year on year regardless of viewing figures and budget.
That’s slowly changing though I mean we literally just had this announced the other day about Newsnight.
If we get a situation where the TV licence is scrapped and are forced into subscription for BBC content then they are totally screwed as they will have a slither of money in the bag going forward.
Especially if they want £14+ a month, and people have a choice.
Individual news shows for sure, Newsnight particularly suffered because of the timing and length (too long, too late). It’s the same as Question Time which is now streamed live earlier to catch those who won’t stay up for it.
But news channels, live, I’d hard disagree on that (but of course I doubt a Monzo forum will change either of our views on that )
2 Likes
I know people - friends on reasonable incomes (one of them a social carer) who are probably going to have to leave the country because of this. I couldn’t be more angry at the stupidity of these policies and the harm they will cause.
6 Likes
I’m all for banning, stopping and scrapping the current government. I just hope that Labour will scrap some of these proposed changes next year.
3 Likes
They won’t. Whether we agree or not, these policies cater to some voters, and any reduction in immigration controls by Labour will not go down well in quite Labour voting areas.
They’ll tinker around the edges for sure, and probably make a song and dance about getting rid of hostile Tory policies, but ultimately they will keep whatever the policy is at the time.
3 Likes
Starmer won’t change anything.
1 Like
We’re going through this process now. My wife (from the EU) has a family visa and will need to extend it in about a year. We’re fortunate enough that the income requirement won’t be an issue for us, but this is going to ruin so many families.
The entire process is already obscenely expensive, so this is going to lock so many families out. My immediate thought goes to families where the mother is a UK citizen and needs to prove their income, but as they’re on maternity leave they don’t earn enough for their partner to get a visa to come to the UK.
If I remember rightly, this makes up such a small percentage of visa applications that really this is all just noise ahead of an election rather than an actual beneficial policy change.
5 Likes
They’ve said that they would (quite rightly) scrap the Rwanda scheme, if it ever gets off the ground before a GE. I doubt it will even get off the ground, though. Yesterday’s “treaty” is not going to satisfy the Supreme Court.
Rwanda is an easy scrap. To most people it makes no sense, is expensive and won’t work.
3 Likes
Totally. Even a dyed in the wool Tory voter at my work was saying to me this week that the Rwanda scheme made no sense. He liked the general idea but not the destination.
1 Like
The money that has been funnelled into it would be far better used on the UK Asylum system.
2 Likes
Did you miss out on Settled Status? If she was here by June 2021, she could apply. That gets you Indefinite Leave to remain (although, confusingly, the physical permit has an expiry date).
Equally valid for non-EU partners (mine is Australian).
See Apply to the EU Settlement Scheme (settled and pre-settled status): Overview - GOV.UK
Believe me, before shelling out thousands of pounds, we checked this 
This is the route anyone who arrived after the cut-off has to take now. It sucks orbs.
1 Like