“whatever it the price is, it is very obviously worth it”

Is it? That may be the case if you have little cash flow probs.

“Its very existence represents implicit recognition that private sector provision necessarily gravitates towards mass market pap”

Really? I think HBO pretty much refutes that (as only one example).

TV Licence is about £13 per month and substantially better value than a Murdoch subscription, or the advertising tax we pay on pretty much everything for the privilege of having commercial broadcasters’ predominantly LCD broadcasts interrupted by the very adverts we’ve paid for.

“TV Licence is about £13 per month and substantially better value than a Murdoch subscription”

I agree and would pay it voluntarily, but that is the moral problem, isn’t it? If I refuse to subscribe to Sky I won’t go to jail. Why should working people be forced to pay for a service that they may never use? Why sould it not be by voluntary subscription, say?

#2 If HBO is just one example, can you name others?

“Radio One – not least the John Peel show – was an integral aspect of my teenage years. Younger workmates tell me that 6 Music now basically fills that gap, offering all the hip stuff from indie to dance that doesn’t make it onto those godawful identikit commercial stations with their wall-to-wall Phil Collins playlists. ”

This is part of the problem too. If this were so, it would be hard to argue with, but the John Peel part of Radio 1 is a tiny fringe, swamped by loads of that boring mainstream stuff you despise.

Dave,

I’m pretty much with you on Radio 6 (as someone who does listen sometimes, and more importantly thinks that the space that and evening and nighttime scheduling on Radio 1 provide is important for challenging accepted ideas of what is ‘good music’). However, I’m not sure on Asian Network. You say

“Whether BBC Asian Network does a decent job is not a matter on which I have an informed opinion. But it sounds a good thing in principle. If it is in any way deficient, make it pull its socks up. There’s no need to axe it.”

But my concern is not the job it does (how do you define this?) but rather the message the fact the BBC have an ‘Asian Network’ sends: that Asians need seperate provision from the rest of Britain. Note this is not one of the BBC 1-7 spectrum, but a seperate station not with the same branding (even 1xtra and 5live sports extra use the branding). I have a concern that people in our country feels the need to identify a certain section of the population and say that rather than encourage you to listen to the same radio as the rest of us, we will try to ghettoise you into listening to a station on the grounds of ethnicity. Apart from the fact this strikes me as lazy thinking (and not even being ‘multicultural’, as that concept at least encouraged cross-contamination of cultures), what message does that give to others. A BNP supporter will say there is no ‘Indigenous folk community network’ (playing Celidgh music and Greensleeves I guess…) and make capital on this point (perhaps through expressing it a bit differently). A retired colonel type (yes, complete with moustaches) will splutter about how his licence fee is being spent on things he does not like; he might say the same about programmes on BBC 1; but then still watch others. The BBC builds up opposition to itself by allowing its provision to be identified with groups.

Lets be clear – there is presumably some good radio on the Asian Network (if only because there is on all other BBC channels). But why should this be compartmentalised and marketted for a single ethnicity – can’t I enjoy a show about Bhangra for example (the answer, incidentally, is yes, although not regularly) and if so, why can’t it fit in a more accessible place. I cannot say the programming on the Asian Network is wrong – but the idea of keeping it apart from the rest of the BBC’s provision in delivery and branding strikes me as creating a seperation. If someone is British Asian, does that mean they are Asian first and therefore should be given seperate radio provision, because that way lies intellectual ghettoisation.

Still, to finish on a positive, I would prefer to cut the woefully comercial Radio 2 daytime provision rather than radio 6.

“#2 If HBO is just one example, can you name others?”

Any other examples of commercial TV that leave the BBC stannding? Sky Sports? How many do we need to make the point?

@4

Why should working people be forced to pay for a service that they may never use?

Working people may never have children or get sick, yet their taxes go towards educating other people’s kids and making other sick people better. The BBC serves as a social glue that everyone benefits from, regardless of whether you watch it/listen to it/usetheir website (and I never believe people who say they don’t).

“Working people may never have children or get sick, yet their taxes go towards educating other people’s kids and making other sick people better. ”

But we do not usually classify the provision of indie pop music on a similar level to the provision of education and health, do we? We consider health and education to be essential human rights, but the chance to listen to techno? Honestly?

“The whole idea of the BBC is that it offers the nation a package deal.”

No no no no no.

The whole idea of the BBC is ‘public service broadcasting’ i.e. providing broadcasting that cannot be provided by other broadcasters. I too have never listened to the Asian Network or BBC 6 Music, but the fact of the matter is that if there was a demand for these stations then they should be privately run and funded by advertising like every other radio station outside of the BBC.

The same logic, incidentally, applies to Radio 1 and 2. Why should they be advert-free and paid for by the public when other competitor stations survive on their own? Radio 3 and 4 should be kept as public service broadcasters because they genuinely provide something that no-one else could provide, but the rest should be cut loose.

With all due respect Dave, you (like so many people in the papers at the moment) are assuming that if the BBC chopped these stations that they would no longer exist. My question to you is why not just privatise them? Public spending gets cut but no-one loses their beloved radio station.

Oh, and the other point to be said about your post, Mr Pill, is that thos services are funded from general taxation which depends to some degree on aability to pay. The licence fee taxes everybody at the same level. Hardly fair is it? And clearly designed to force working people to pay for the entertainment preferences of the middle classes.

Agree with #11, I’m afraid.

Also, hasn’t anyone noticed that since its creation, 6 Music as acted as some kind of music ghetto? As in, It’s as if they thought at the BBC that “we’ve got 6 Music now so we have little other obligation to ‘less mainstream music’ elsehwhere”…

Like I argued elsewhere. A public duty does not mean that the BBC should cover each and every thing. Because, otherwise, where do you draw the line?

Why not BBC Tango then…or BBC Salsa or BBC Mid20s for people in their mid20s? Sure there’s a constituency for each of them, but it comes at a bleedin price which -lest we forget- is compulsory for everyone.

#8

Interesting that you can only list subscription-based channels. I won’t pay for Sky Sports or HBO (even though I like their content) but I’m more than willing to pay a licence fee for BBC channels/radio stations/online content alone. (In fact, I’d pay it for Radio 3 and the bbc website alone.) On your basis the BBC is incredibly good value.

oh, and the whole case of Radio 6 just goes to prove that if the BBC has to make cuts it won’t cut the mainstream stuff that could be done by commercial competitors but the fringe stuff that couldn’t (or wouldn’t) be.

“Interesting that you can only list subscription-based channels. I won’t pay for Sky Sports or HBO (even though I like their content) but I’m more than willing to pay a licence fee for BBC channels/radio stations/online content alone. (In fact, I’d pay it for Radio 3 and the bbc website alone.) ”

Well if you are willing to pay, nopbody should be able to stop you. But the amount you pay depends on thelaw forcing millions of others to pay too. How is that justifiable. As Letters says above, if the justification is that there are essential broacasting services that only the state can provide thenm make that case. But ‘Simply Come Dancing’? You can really justify sending somone to jail for not paying to watch Simply Come Dancing?

And it makes sense to compare the BBC to other subscription channels because the BBC is a subscription service. It just isn’t a voluntary one.

@10

Apologies – I was referring to the BBC as a whole. FWIW though, an example of what I mean: I don’t, ever, watch sport on television; but I know lots of people enjoy it and it’s an important part of our collective culture, hence I’m not too bothered that part of my license fee goes towards it. Thus it is with indiepop or techno (or any other genre you’d care to name): they are part of our artistic and cultural heritage (ok there’s a debate to be had to what extent the top 40 is reflective of decent music, but that’s exactly why 6 Music and the Asian Network are vital to public broadcasting).

I do, however, agree that somehow the Beeb should change how it’s funded. The license fee keeps it – to an extent and in theory – accountable so I personally think it should remain, but perhaps in a different form. Damned if I know how though.

HBO isn’t a valid example at all. It’s owned by Time Warner, who have the clout to ensure it has huge market privileges in selling its ‘premium’ content.

I object to an Australian born, naturalised American, who makes a lot of money in the UK but pays no UK tax* dictates British broadcasting policy

(* maybe the Sun could consider that when doing one of its “MoD doesn’t supply our troops with proper equipment” campaigns – maybe if the Sun’s parent company paid UK tax the MoD might have a bit more money)

I oppose the closure of BBC Radio 6, not sure about the Asian Network for same reasons as outlined @ 7 (there is no BBC Afro-Carribbean Network).

However, BBC does have problems, namely a cultural organisation has over the decade or so replicated some of the worst aspects of the private sector, for example massively overpaid executives and presenters. And I don’t just mean J. Ross, does an autocue reader on BBC News channel need to be paid 90 grand a year?

Plus Beeb could ditch the reality and makeover shows and leave ‘em to the commercial sector. And on the interweb sites I have noticed precious little enthusiasm for BBC3 tv channel.

It’s the sheer arogance of the BBC. It’s a culture that only a company guaranteed £3.5 BILLION p.a can have.
The rest of the world is being crushed by recession and the BBC carries on as if they have money to burn.
I shop at Sainsburys but don’t pay The Co-op £142 to do so. I drive a BMW but don’t pay Audi £142 to do so, so why do I have to pay the BBC when I only view Sky.

It’s 2010 encription is easy, so why not use it or are the BBC scared of what will happen to their market share.

I wouldn’t shut down the Beeb just because of Strictly Come Dancing.

I would, however, like to fire the idiots who keep commissioning it.

I love the BBC, I think the license fee is essential to maintaining national and regional programming, but BBC1 is a parade of absolute horseshit that costs a fortune to run, and BBC2 is just a complacent, bourgois shitshow. We’d be better off if those two channels were burned to the ground, and BBC3 and BBC4 renamed.

I can’t have sympathy for people who complain about the ‘license tax’, though. There’s a massive heap of BBC departments that the private sector evidently doesn’t go anywhere near.

Re: 20

I used to drive a Bentley to Waitrose, I guess recession hits us all, huh?

Couple of different arguements going on here. Should we have a licence fee is a seperate discuson from given that we do should it be used to provide stations like bbc6. 6 music gives distincive quality broadcasting of a type the commercial sector doesn’t even try to, and going by listener numbers and cost its providing better value for money than radio 3 or 4. Day time radio one and two on the other hand seems to offer nothing that the commercials don’t.

@11 (LFAT) : If 6 Music would exist without the BBC, then why didn’t it exist before the BBC created it, or currently? Why has the commercial sector not created it already?

Your argument is much stronger if you focus on the amount that the BBC spends on Local radio, which dwarfs 6music – and is provided for by the commercial sector.

“HBO isn’t a valid example at all. It’s owned by Time Warner, who have the clout to ensure it has huge market privileges in selling its ‘premium’ content.”

Get outta here! HBO survives on stupendously good products which people are will ing top shell out for. I would be willing too.

“why do I have to pay the BBC when I only view Sky”

That is a pretty unanswerable question, isn’t it? Unless the answe is something like ‘people lik us know better what you need, culturally, than you do’. I don’t think that is wrong necessarily, but that is not how the BBC argues. And while it is spending buillions ofnStriclty and Jonathan Rossish stuff, it is understandable why not.

Why not acknowledge that if right-wingers irrationally hate the idea of the BBC, left-wingers, in turn, irrationally love the BBC when it forces other news competitors out of business, as an example of big-state corporatism they’d like to see elsewhere?

“I shop at Sainsburys but don’t pay The Co-op £142 to do so. I drive a BMW but don’t pay Audi £142 to do so, so why do I have to pay the BBC when I only view Sky.”

You’ll be telling us you support Man Utd next.

@24 (ian): The BBC radio stations were the flagships for digital radio, so were first created, hence the market for Radio 6 was filled when digital broadcasting started…

That said, there is a role for the BBC there perhaps. Proving a market for something like Radio 6 exists and then letting it go commercial? Is that not in the public interest (much as I hate adverts, I refuse to recognise the argument ‘adverts are not in the public interest’ should anyone be strange enough to make it). Although the logic of that means that although I support Radio 6, if it could be viable independently of the BBC it probably should be. Which means this thread has changed my mind (but not in the way it intended…). Incidentally – if anyone is arguing Asian Network is worth keeping, the same applies to this.

But as a serious point, why do we assume once the BBC proves something works that it has to retain control of it? By so doing, when it could be self-funding, it denies funding to other areas where the BBC could develop ideas. I do not (unlike some commentators) disapprove of the license fee, but perhaps we need to address the question of whether the fee is there to provide what we want to see or to provide things we might not otherwise see.

Planeshift,

‘You’ll be telling us you support Man Utd next.’

Please someone bring in legislation requiring Manchester United fans to pay all other clubs £142 for watching their team. Imagine how much Portsmouth and Crystal Palace would appreciate the sudden income…

A few people have used HBO as an example of a subscription based model that the BBC could possibly follow. However HBO is a small niche broadcaster in a country of over 300 million people, we have a population only a fifth of that, so I’m not sure that the sums the BBC would be able to get would guarantee it would be a practical proposition. HBO provides some excellent drama, but I don’t think it goes beyond that, (no news for instance, no children’s content, correct me if I’m wrong here), so outside the adult drama arena US television is hideous, the news is awful, children’s TV that I wouldn’t let my kids watch.
Sky is another example, but again it is really a niche broadcaster that exists because it has (rightly or wrongly) monopolised the sports rights in the UK. I don’t think the other channels would survive without Premiership Football coverage.
And on a more personal note, I love 6 Music. I work at home and it’s my constant companion, and there isn’t any commercial alternative to it, so please Mark Thompson, change your mind

Whether Radio 6 and the Asian Network should continue and whether the BBC should be funded by a poll tax are different questions.

I’m a supporter of public broadcasting (see any number of my defences of the BBC) but is a tax which takes little account of people’s ability to pay and which punishes non-payers in such a draconian fashon more acceptable than funding the BBC through income-based taxation?

#7 – spot on.

The idea of a BBC station catering for a specific ethnicity isn’t something I can support.

‘Nor do I listen to any music radio. Why would I?’

Satire crashes into reality again: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/bbc-angers-fans-of-the-idea-of-6-music-201003032520/

No doubt there are better ways to cut the BBC’s costs than this, but considering the whole scheme is founded on extortion, it pails in comparison to the urgent need to make the license fee voluntary.

Why is it too much to suggest that the BBC could shrink to Radios 3 and 4, maybe a new music station too, and BBC2 / BBC4, keeping the news gathering functions more or less intact too.

What would that do to the license fee? Halve it?

The BBC can never win this argument against the knuckle dragging anti BBC brigade. If they produce high audience figures the anti BBC mob will say that the private sector can do this. Well, I beg to differ. There are plenty of commercial radio stations, yet Radio 2 and Radio 1 get millions of listeners. I would suggest that these people don’t like what the commercial stations are doing. So instead of whinging the private sector should work harder on giving their listeners what they want.

If the BBC fall for this nonsense, and just make shows that get a few viewers, the same anti BBC morons will then change their argument. They will now say that “nobody wants to watch these shows so why are the BBC making them” The BBC can’t win in the eyes of the Murdoch apparatchiks.

sally,

That’s why the purpose of the BBC needs definition – it may not please everyone, but it will at least give them a better defence.

Re: 25

Right, and how do you build a reputation? You’re naive if you think HBO pays its writing team more than it pays its marketing team.

Re: 36

The problem with that view is that the BBC would make much better decisions if it listened to its detractors. At the moment it just hears “The BBC is worth every penny” from a few diehards, and interprets that to mean “Everything the BBC pays for is worth every penny” which is clear bullshit.

I want BBC1 & 2, and Radios 1, 2 and 5 to stop being a load of old shit. I think 1Xtra and Asian network are really good, but probably should be squeezed into Radio 1. I always considered 6music to be a kind of Cinderella – treated like shit by its masters, but destined to be recognised for its true beauty. That’ll never happen now.

The Asian Network, may or may not be socially divisive and may or may not contribute to a ghetto mentality, however it is not the BBC’s job to decide that. Asians pay their licence fee too and are entitled to get something from the BBC. If people wish to use this as ‘proof’ of something about Asian culture then that is an entirely separate matter. The BBC should attempt to reach this audience the best they can, and if that requires a dedicated channel then fair enough. If the channel has failed it remit then the BBC need to think again, but they should be under no obligation to close this station on ‘political’ grounds.

Those who watch mindless ‘reality’ shows also pay the licence fee to and the BBC are duty bound to provide them with programmes as well. I have never once watched this type of programme to be honest, but given people like these types of things, the BBC should be making them too.

I fully understand the Right’s objection to the BBC. Anything that is a ‘Public Service’ is an anathema to them and if they can dilute the BBC’s audience they can destroy the BBC. Similar to the strategy they have with the NHS. Make no mistake, when the BBC is only making niche programmes for small audiences, the same people who are arguing for the BBC to be removed from competition from the private sector, will be demanding it removed from the airwaves once it fails to meet mass audiences.

Radio is a prime example. Our airwaves are polluted with mindless music pap. Where is the innovation coming from? Where is new music being broken? Who is making radio comedy? Documentaries? Interesting factual based programming? Not commercial stations, that’s for sure.

We are always told that the private sector is better than the public sector, yet private sector in broadcasting in this Country is decidedly shit.

Perhaps the BBC should be made to buy and sell ‘friends reunited’ for a whopping loss?

“I go for months on end without watching a television programme”

Don’t you watch University Challenge?

That is all I watch, I go to my mum’s every week to view it. I don’t actually have a TV myself.

Although the BBC is publicly funded, it has to compete for staff and other rescources, such as sports coverage, against the private sector, it has, in effect, a foot in the public and the private. It is ridiculous to attempt any kind of analysis in terms of market theory, the BBC is best compared with taxes such as the council tax whereby we all pay for services such as libraries and ‘meal on wheels’ whether or not we use them.
It is very difficult, when cuts need to be made, but Asian people pay the same television licence fee, and the Asian network is just a small percentage of the whole.

“The problem with that view is that the BBC would make much better decisions if it listened to its detractors. At the moment it just hears “The BBC is worth every penny” from a few diehards, and interprets that to mean “Everything the BBC pays for is worth every penny” which is clear bullshit.”

It is you who talks bullshit. What planet have you come from? The planet zog?

Have you not heard of the Murdoch newspapers who attack the BBC daily? Or maybe on planet zog you have never heard of the Daily Mail who wails against the BBC all the time.

The BBC is under constant attack form both the private sector who have an interest in destroying it, and then there are the usual tory suspects who want to change all British media into Fox news.

Re: 43

Thought you wanted a discussion. My mistake.

I presume that Dave Osler doesn’t get up at 08:00 on a sunday morning when BBC 6 Music is the only thing worth listening to on the radio

Those who think that BBC 6 Music could survive as a commercial station misunderstand the content. BBC 6 Music recycles the old sessions that were recorded for Peel and the other evening Radio 1 presenters, and the juxtaposition with classic non-mainstream popular music or up-and-comers makes the station what it is. A commercial station would not necessarily have (cheap) access to the old sessions.

Sally raises some reasonable questions in her first post. There are loads of commercial radio stations who compete with the BBC. Many of the first wave of DAB stations disappeared because there was no audience. If BBC 6 Music is going to be killed off, I’d first like to know how the audience compares with other DAB-only stations. Secondly, I’d like to know why there are no trailers elsewhere for BBC 6 Music. BBC 4 on the telly gets a few trailers and a few programmes are repeated on BBC2 at popular viewing times. It thus seems to me that different criteria are being applied to different media.

The BBC 6 Music closure also indicates a failure within the BBC to understand adult music taste. The success of Jools Holland and his TV shows may even have set things back; “there’s a grown up programme for telly viewers, isn’t there?”.

Oh yes, and if you like some good old music telly have a look at BBC 4 on a Friday night. But then some of the so called experts wants the BBC to get rid of that station as well.

They could shunt some of that stuff onto BBC2. But I love BBC 4. But the private sector must stop moaning and make shows that people want to listen to.

Terry Wogan was getting 7 million people. Maybe people don’t want to listen to idiot phone ins with disgusted from Tunbridge wells on all the time. Private broadcasters must just work harde , and come up with what people want.

#35

In terms of my personal preferences I’d actually be fine with that – keeping Radio 6 and of course Test Match Special too – the trouble is we all know that if cuts are made it will be all that stuff that goes first. Radio 1 and Eastenders will be the very last things to go.

Sky News or BBC News. Which do you want?

Sky Sports or Radio 4. Which would be a greater loss to society?

Murdoch, fuck off.

Those people who say the bbc should only provide what commercial stations don’t, just want to destroy the bbc. The bbc can only get people to watch the intelligent stuff by having mass market programmes in the mix. The US imports, eastenders, sport and yes some tat, bring in a different audience who then stumble upon the good intelligent stuff. Without eastenders, horizon wouldn’t get 2m viewers. The bbc is a bargain. Most people watch it and it costs them less than commercial tv that insults our intelligence. Monopolies exist in the private sector. The right make the mistake of thinking that we can avoid advertising costs of itv, sky etc. We all pay when we fill our shopping trolleys. It would be impossible to avoid.

QUOTE: “In its way, Britain’s state broadcaster is a standing rebuke to free market fundamentalism. No wonder Murdoch and the Tories hate it.” UNQUOTE

YES! Anyone who doubts the above should go to ‘ConservativeHome’ (the blog for the tory activists – or the ‘Guido Fawkes’ blog (most popular Tory blog). Type “BBC” into the search engine and read the comments. The astonishing hatred is amazing, they can hardly contain themselves, they spit blood and venom. Have no doubt they want to destroy the BBC and will use ANY tactic to achieve it.

Considering the amount of money ITV and especially Sky make, it’s rather amusing to compare the output of the organisations.

Whilst ITV make nowhere near as much as the BBC, they manage to put out 4 channels of complete and utter shit.. Compare the ITV football coverage to the BBC, and the difference is incredible.

Compare again, Sky vs. the BBC, Sky making several billion pounds more a year than the BBC. How many original programmes have Sky commissioned this year? Of those, how many have been any good? Yes, you get to watch the football (for a £30 a month top up) but what else is there really? Endless repeats of Road Wars!

Quite frankly, I don’t think any commercial organisation can ever commission a show like Mock the Week, Have I Got News for You, Charlie Brooker’s News/Screenwipe and, heaven forgive me, Top Gear. The commercial pressure to not insult the sponsors would neuter any comedy or satire.

No commercial broadcaster can provide what the BBC can, and Murdoch needs to do one.

Charlieman

Never mind how 6Music compares with DAB radio stations – how does it compare with other BBC stations on FM….

There are 10M DAB sets in the UK (source, DRMB).
6Music has a listenership of ~ 700,000, or 7% of those DAB sets. It costs £9M, or just under £13 per listener.

Radio 3, on the other hand, has a listenship of ~1.9M, and if we assume that almost everyone has an FM receiver, that is about 3% of the population, or under half the appeal of 6Music. It costs £51M, or nearly £26 per listener

BBC local radio (excluding Wales and Scotland) has a listenership of 6.7M, but costs £133M – or nearly £20 per listener, over a fifth of the BBC radio budget. And I can’t believe that any of that has ever created anything of any worth at all.

Even if you agree that the BBC needs cuts, 6Music is the wrong target – it’s £9M budget is around 1.5% of the total BBC radio budget

It is pretty obvious why the whole spectrum of the Right wing in British life dislike/despise the BBC. You can pretty much gauge how far to the Right someone is by how much they dislike the BBC.

Those on the Right generally do not feel the need to think for themselves, preferring to have ‘their’ opinions spoon-fed to them via whichever pet newspaper proprietor/pundit they have limpeted themselves onto at that particular time.

How many times have you read a Tory demand that the BBC tell us the ‘truth’ about asylum/immigration/race, crime, unemployment or every other contentious issue? In fact, how many times have we heard them demand we get the ‘truth’ about relatively uncontroversial subjects like Global Warming?

In fact, is not the ‘truth’ they want, they want the BBC to reflect the ill informed drivel and prejudices of Hitchens, Moir, Phillips et al.

They do not want objective reporting and impartiality, they want their idiotic views re-enforced.

The thing is, everything the Right tell us what is wrong with the public services in general, i.e. bloated, bureaucratic, Politically Correct, arrogant, not customer focussed, unaccountable to the market, non responsive to the market, top down approach, one size fits all etc are arguably true of the BBC and yet these ‘weaknesses’ do not seem to impinge them making good programmes?

ITV, channels 4 and 5 are the nearest thing BBC TV has as rivals. Let us be honest here, BBC and ITV are not competing for revenue. ITV gain revenue via advertising and the BBC gains revenue from ‘tax’ (lets not split hairs). All these channels are free to air.

Yet despite all the (what we are told consistently by the Right) ‘advantages’ the free market has over the ‘public sector’, ITV make shit programmes and lose out the BBC. Why is that? Surely ITV survive only my it’s wits and by honing its business model to perfection? Same as its radio stations and their rivals too.

Surely the private sector is forced to compete for revenue and is therefore driven to make innovative quality programmes and require a slimed down, lean decision making, non hoop jumping, non box ticking process? Doesn’t that mean that the public sector broadcaster, with its top heavy management of ‘diversity officers’, health and safety managers, wheelchair user/race relations advisers and all the other public sector hang ups should be looking tired, down trodden and increasingly threadbare? Yet that is simply not the case. For all the deadweight around its ankles, the BBC still out performs its ‘rivals’ in quality and audience figures. Yet ITV needs the latter, yet it is unwilling or unable to produce better programmes. Cleary the BBC are doing something that the private sector cannot.

…and the best remedy the Right can come up with, over three threads? Lets hamstring the BBC to make it shit enough for ITV to compete with it!

Yeah, all hail the free market!