Time bomb ticks under BBC funding issue

July 21, 2009

Somehow or other, the FT – not by and large a fan of the BBC – has managed to dig up an academic who can conclusively prove that top-slicing, the principle of rechannelling a portion of the BBC licence fee to other worthy causes, is nothing new.

Apparently, up to 1962, it was quite routine. Besides the treasury holding back 12.5% as part of general revenue, a further 8 or 9% found its way to the Post Office. A handsome commission for handling the licence’s distribution, you must agree. But, come to think of it, a handy precedent for bailing out a national institution which is gradually bankrupting us and yet refuses to be privatised.

Bradshaw: Intemperate

Bradshaw: Intemperate

The ‘precedent’ is of course further ammunition for our new, and intemperate, culture secretary, Ben Bradshaw, who has made no bones about imposing top-slicing by parliamentary statute if necessary.

Luckily for the BBC’s senior brass, this looks like being a remote possibility – what with a general election looming, the Government will have other priorities.

But only temporarily. The issue is going to come back to haunt the BBC with a vengeance, because any future administration will be cash-strapped for the foreseeable, and therefore on the look-out for an easy raid.

And when the politicians do get round to plundering the licence fee, what will be the consequences for BBC, the world-beating brand? Not good, for sure. More on this in the column this week.

About these ads

The BBC is not an island unto itself

May 18, 2009

Is that the echo of hollow laughter I hear? Why yes, it’s the sound of commercial broadcasters sniggering over BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons’ impassioned defence of the licence fee’s integrity.

Apparently, Sir Michael doesn’t believe in top-slicing it, not for Channel 4 or anyone else. And he’s prepared to die in a ditch over it.

Well, he would say that sort of thing, wouldn’t he? When have turkeys ever voted for Christmas, after all? But before we get carried away with smug self-satisfaction at the BBC’s dilemma, let’s at least concede that he has a point in flagging up the public interest.

Well padded and complacent the BBC may be, but the commercial sector is, and always has been, incapable of supplying the deficit. Innovations, such as iPlayer, have come about precisely because the BBC can take a longer view on product development, unbeholden to the quarterly earnings obsession of institutional shareholders.

Lyons fears that top-slicing and David Cameron’s proposal to first freeze then review the licence fee annually (instead of five-yearly) amount to the same thing: an assault on its status as something quite distinct from general taxation. Once the licence fee becomes simply a means of raising money for other purposes, it will be death for the BBC  by a thousand cuts (and subsidies). Not unlike the way a substantial portion of National Lottery revenues is finding its way into underpinning London 2012, as opposed to the good causes which are a fundamental part of its charter.

Slow financial emasculation is bad enough, but the Cameron plan hints at a darker agenda. It may well open the way to overt political interference in the BBC’s news agenda. Would you trust the central cast in our House of Frauds drama to play fair over news values? That’s a rhetorical question.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 425 other followers

%d bloggers like this: