The Options

Here's a summary of the major options for dealing with the BBC:

1. Keep the status quo

Under this option, the BBC retains its Royal Charter and remains a statutory Corporation, and the TV licence system remains in place.  But this does not necessarily mean the status quo pura.  Perhaps there will be some further cosmetic reforms, as has happened in the past.  Or possibly under a 'status quo' avenue the TV licence could be ended and replaced with funding out of general taxation.  Or the Establishment might double-down and develop a tougher enforcement regime for the TV licence.  We would also include the Labour Party's latest proposals for the BBC (and the wider media) in this category.

2. Marketisation (the 'Status Quo Plus' option)

Under this option, the BBC retains its Royal Charter and remains a statutory Corporation, but the TV licence system is replaced with market-based funding, such as subscriptions or advertising (or a combination of such).

3. Commercialisation 

Under this option, the BBC loses its Royal Charter but remains a statutory Corporation (or a public enterprise on some other legal basis), thus notionally under public ownership (a quite similar situation to Channel Four).  The TV licence is ended.  Presumably funding would be by subscription or advertising, or a combination of these.   

4. Privatisation and re-chartering ('Privatisation-lite')

Under this option, the BBC retains its Royal Charter in some form but is no longer a statutory Corporation, instead one or more public limited companies that people buy shares in.  Presumably under this model a mandatory TV licence fee would no longer be considered necessary, as the new company(ies) would be free to seek private funding in the same way as any other listed concern.  That said, as chartered status is retained, the government would probably establish a commissioning body modelled broadly along the lines of the former BBC Trust.

5. Privatisation and dechartering 

The BBC loses its Royal Charter, which is revoked, and is no longer a statutory Corporation, instead it becomes one or more public limited companies that people buy shares in.  This is a complete break: no TV licence, no superintending bodies beyond those that apply to any other broadcaster.

6. Privatisation and pluralisation 

As with 5 above, this is a complete break: the BBC loses its Royal Charter and is no longer a statutory Corporation, therefore no TV licence and no superintending bodies beyond those that apply to any other broadcaster or media organisation. There is the added change that the BBC's services are 'pluralised', which is to say, split between a number of different businesses that operate independently of each other, taking the neo-liberal Birt reforms to their logical conclusion.  To get a picture of what this could look like, think of the privatisation of railway and train services (the British Rail group) during the 1990s, in which the government set up a private company for running the infrastructure, various operating companies for rolling stock, etc. and lots of train operating companies to run the actual train services.  One difference with a media/broadcasting privatisation and break-up is that, unlike with trains and railways, the new spun-out enterprises could potentially compete with each other, hence the disaster of this model for the trains and railways should not necessarily inauspicious.

7. Abolition 

This is what we want.  Find out why here and here.  Under this option, the BBC's Royal Charter is revoked, the statutory Corporation is dissolved and not replaced with anything else, transmission is ended and the BBC ceases to be a going concern; then, receivers take over management and control of the assets and commence, variously, selling-off and leasing these on the commercial market, etc., as they would with any other business.  Wage, salary and pension entitlements are protected and paid-out in the usual manner according to general law and contract, underpinned by a state guarantee.

To be clear, under this option the BBC ceases to exist.  That means all transmissions end.  That's a very important point because the ensuing receivership must not facilitate a privatisation by the backdoor.  The Corporation must be dissolved, must cease operating on a fixed date, must cease to be a going concern (save to the extent that management have a duty to assist the receivers and civil servants, as necessary), and the Corporation must be brought promptly under the management of government-appointed receivers with a view to complete asset fragmentation and disposal.

Further Comment

We would assume that most people involved with or supporting the BBC would want some version of Option 1, with quite a few favouring Option 2 (which could be seen as the 'Status Quo Plus' option).  That's fairly obvious.

But we also think there will be a sizeable minority within the BBC - maybe forming a majority of its very senior management and among its more shrewd and intelligent supporters - who would quite like the look of Option 3 ('Commercialisation') or Option 4 ('Privatisation-lite').  A commercialised BBC would be freer to seek private investment, while at the same time enjoying the stability and influence of a public enterprise with the 'BBC brand'.  The privatisation-lite option would retain the prestige of the Royal Charter, while allowing considerably greater commercial freedom than a public enterprise could have, albeit within the parameters of whatever commissioning agenda the government saw fit to impose as a condition of continued chartering.  With either option, the TV licence system is gone and much of the more meaningful criticism of the BBC is thereby neutralised. In that situation, the BBC's future is secured and its sinister agenda against this country can be pursued anew with vigour.

The BBC's greatest fear is the option we favour, Abolition - for obvious reasons.  They would also not like the more hardline privatisation options very much, especially if it involves a break-up of the BBC into discrete and competing entities.