Is Auntie Really On Her Death Bed?

There are few institutions in British society so loved as the BBC. It is surprising then, that culture secretary John Whittingdale has had the audacity to present to parliament a green paper outlining potential changes in the future scale and scope of the BBC. The organisation is undoubtedly the relic of a bygone era, especially the archaic and arbitrary way that it is funded. Yet, having a debate about this large and successful media giant, presents a world of possibilities about the future relationship between Britain’s public institutions and an impatient cash-strapped public.

I have a confession to make, I actually quite like the BBC. I don’t often watch much telly, but when I do it is usually a BBC programme. I think that some of the documentaries on BBC4 are great. Furthermore, my Thursday nights wouldn’t be the same without the ritual of sitting back and being reliably outraged about what various politicians are saying on Question Time. My morning drive to work is usually accompanied by the Today Show and my journey home allows me to catch up on the day’s news with PM. I must also admit that I often rely on the BBC NEWS app on my phone to deliver my ‘breaking news’ if not the analysis. I love the RADIO 1 Rock Show and the Punk Show and genuinely got very into the Bake-Off this year. If the license fee was abolished tomorrow, the chances are that I would be one of the millions of people subscribing to a newly privatised BBC.

It already looks like the BBC approving public have taken up defensive positions. The Conservative’s insistence that the license fee be scrapped for over 75s has been a sudden and intrusive act of vandalism in the eyes of aunties’ most ardent supporters. On RADIO 4’s Moral Maze this week, Giles Fraser vociferously lamented the delinquency of ’conservatives who don’t want to conserve anything’, ripping the heart out the British community and accused the IEA’s Ryan Bourne of ‘free market fundamentalism’.

In the eyes of many free-market folk, the new challenge to the broadcasting behemoth is a welcome one. Yet, a closer look at the facts about Whittingdale’s green paper reveals that it is much less radical than many of us expected. It would appear the panel tasked with assessing the BBC is made up of representatives from private broadcasting organisations and industry experts, surely a clear statement of intent that the BBC is going to be carved up? Not quite, what strikes me about the green paper is how cautious it is. I think it’s reasonable to suggest that in true Cameronesque style, the Tories are talking tough but won’t end up delivering anything remotely radical. I predict that as soon as Whittingdale’s pals in the broadcasting industry are appeased, he will renew the royal charter with little alteration.

This is unfortunate, however with any luck this could be a much needed watershed moment. It is quite clear that the modern BBC goes well beyond the remit for a ‘public service’ broadcaster. Something about news readers having celebrity status and managers with sky-high salaries should make license fee payers wince as they cough up a mandatory £145 every year. It’s quite clear that the BBC wants to be a slick global broadcasting empire, like CNN or Al Jazeera, and I am quite happy to let that happen…but not with taxpayers’ money.

In fact, I would argue that the BBC could have the potential to be a commercialised miracle. Part of the reason why privatisation has such a bad name in Britain is because it has been done so badly. However, with a globally recognised and prestigious brand, a privatised BBC doesn’t have to be a ‘fire sale’; it could be a grand unleashing. Furthermore, as Allister Heath and Ryan Bourne have suggested, in the short term the government could easily provide funding for ‘public service’ programming on a case by case basis. But a blanket license fee in the digital age is clearly unjust.

Another aspect of what will inevitably become a game of political football is the snobbery shown by some supporters of the BBC. I am referring to the idea that without public funding, programmes about philosophy, classical music or obscure melodramas simply couldn’t exist. I would ask people who hold such views to visit their nearest corner shop, and stare at the magazine rack. Despite printed media being one of the most competitive industries in the country, there is no shortage of highbrow reading. For every copy of Nuts, The Daily Star and Closer; there is National Geographic, The Financial Times and Private Eye. I believe that this view held by many; is snobbish nihilism of the worst kind, that the masses requires rivers of freely flowing taxpayers money to have enlightening material rammed down their throats, it is truly absurd.

The real losers of the BBC’s review will be the people who want to see the organisation crushed and humiliated. The Murdoch press, Guido Fawkes fans and anyone who has ever said ‘The British Bolshevik Corporation’ will be disappointed by John Whittingdale’s assessment. I would also like to add here that we shouldn’t be overly enthusiastic about the Culture Secretary giving the BBC a bloody nose, reducing one part of government whilst expanding another couldn’t be described as much of a victory.


  1. Surely no one calls the BBC ‘Auntie’? There is not, and never has been, a case for ‘public service’ broadcasting. The whole thing is a scam to propagate statism and provide very well-paid jobs to middle class Arts graduates who would otherwise be in desperate search of a means to lead an economic existence.

    I would happily privatise it, but make it subscription, and just as in days gone by, a statue might be erected by public subscription, and these days the RNLI is funded by it, as is a flying (for this summer) Vulcan bomber, BBC radio could be either encoded or simply be paid for free-to-air by subscribers, and then we would see who really wants it.

    The Whittingdale review has all the hallmarks of the Stupid Party earning its moniker once again, feeding the hand that bites it. Mrs Thatcher was either too stupid, left-wing or timid to do anything about the BBC, despite Sky appearing during her time in office. What hope is there that Mr Cameron’s troops would do anything, other than tinker?



  2. if you like it go and pay for that, although I doubt a real libertarian likes a left-wing, statist, collectivist organization with tons of programs which aim just to spread collectivism. It is terribly biased and I cannot understand why you think it is very strange to call it Bolshevik? And why your article implies Murdoch is an evil? It shows you really rely much on BBC. He has not forced others to pay for his stupid channels by gun.
    Sorry mate, your article should have been published in Guardian and you are galaxies away from a real libertarian. BBC would not exit without forced funding. Its programs are cheap, lefty and Marxist. If you cannot get that, try to learn more.



    1. Arash,

      I must admit I was a little taken aback by your remarks. I personally see nothing wrong with consuming content from different media organisations. The fact that you seem to believe, that one cannot watch a programme or read an article, without being brainwashed, says much about your dismal McCarthyist outlook on humanity.But I don’t think it’s right to go around accusing people of not being ‘real libertarians’. If you not only read more but read widely. You will find that Libertarianism is a brilliant multitude of opinions and ideas. Not a suffocating set of dogmas and tautologies.

      Just for the record, I never suggested that the BBC licence fee is justified, or that I would want to prevent its privatisation. Why you assume that I’m secretly a communist who has successfully infiltrated an obviously Libertarian website is beyond me….



    2. Arash, you are correct, one cannot conceive of a justification for “Auntie’s” existence from a Libertarian perspective. However the truth is that they do make some good documentaries and QT is excellent for raising the blood pressure.



  3. The only rational libertarian response to the BBC is sheer and utter hatred.

    It is paid for by a national protection scheme and the subsidies it enjoys distort markets in TV, radio publishing and internet. Furthermore it is too closely aligned with the state to ever be trusted as an independent voice. It is, literally, dependent on state welfare for it’s existence.

    My contact with them last year did nothing to counteract my instinctive loathing.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s