Non-Payment Is A Tactic, Not A Strategy

The clip is valuable for the information and perspective it offers, and we must credit the BBC with allowing such a debate on its own airtime.  Nick Ross is quite knowledgeable and articulate on the subject.  He argues against the TV licence, calling it "anachronistic", "increasingly archaic" and heading for redundancy, and assumes that the BBC want to keep it.

Ross is right on the first point (with the caveat that the TV licence is already redundant), but we think he is wrong on the latter point – the BBC’s senior management want to get rid of the TV licence, if anything more than the non-payers and protesters/campaigners do.  They are not afraid of competition.  Why would they be?  They have eight decades of public investment in a world-class brand behind them and (generally-speaking) world-class journalistic and broadcasting talent at their immediate disposal.  Really, the idea that the BBC is afraid to lose the TV licence is completely ridiculous.  Commercialisation?  Subscriptions? Privatisation?  These don't scare the top people at the BBC, whatever they may say in their press releases.  There is no lack of vision and no "risk aversion".

The real reason we still have the TV licence is, oddly enough, down to politics: it gives the government political control over the BBC, without the downside of accountability and answerability for its output that there would be if the BBC were funded out of general taxation.  That, in one sentence, is what this is all about.  The BBC is, properly-understood, a state broadcaster, and the TV licence is the perfect arrangement for politicians. 

The solution is abolition and closure of the BBC for good.  Anything less plays into their hands and will just leave us stuck with a hybrid Channel Four/LBC-style left-wing media conglomerate with a super-dominant market position.  In that scenario, the BBC will go on forever. 

Bring down the BBC by not paying for your licence?  We can almost hear the laughter at Broadcasting House.  “Go ahead!” will be the response.  Myoptic personal tactics like non-payment are fine as far as they go, but not enough.  On its own, that will drag us into a scenario similar to Australia, which ended its TV licence, only to continue with state broadcasting but funded out of general taxation - a much worse system.  Or it will lead to commercialisation, which will put the BBC in an unassailable position, free to continue with its campaign to undermine and destroy Britain under the guise of a prestigious brand with a "public service remit".

We need a political strategy for complete abolition, and it needs to start now, not 10 or 15 years down the line – otherwise the end of the BBC will be like Brexit: another stitch-up.  As Ross says in the clip, the private sector providers, ITV and Channel Four, are quite able to fulfil the necessary public service obligations, so far as they are commercially practicable.  We have no need for the BBC.  It has completed its mission and should now be dismantled.

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.

Our Mission and Objective

We are the Campaign To Abolish The BBC.  

Our objective:

WE DEMAND THE ABOLITION OF THE BBC.

Most anti-BBC campaigners concentrate on the TV licence.  While we completely understand this approach and we agree that the TV licence system is outrageous, we believe that reforming the BBC's funding will ultimately not be enough. The BBC itself must be abolished.

Why Should The BBC Be Abolished?

The reasons are both political and operational. The BBC is a malignancy in our national life. It is a hotbed of Leftism, and anti-patriotic thought and sentiment, and is openly subversive.  Quite apart from this, there is no longer any need for a state-owned 'public service broadcaster' in Britain (even on a commercial basis).  We now live in the digital age, where there is choice and innovation and even ordinary people can set up their own digital channels on the web and attract thousands of viewers and subscribers. The BBC will reply that, in a pluralistic Information Society where there is a multiplicity of different media, it should remain as a guardian of impartiality, but the BBC is hopelessly biased. The guardian should be the free market that already exists and that can thrive without the BBC monolith.  Parliament should revoke the Charter, dissolve the Corporation, then sell-off its assets to the private sector. Its staff should be expected to seek employment in the commercial world.

Why Anti-TV Licence Campaigns Are Strategically-Flawed

To be clear, we are not suggesting people should continue to pay the TV licence.  Quite the opposite: we endorse civil resistance and we openly support and agree with anybody who refuses to pay it.  Anti-TV licence campaigners, whether avoiders or evaders, have our sympathy and support.  They are persuing an effective tactic that could, if it gains ground, put considerable financial pressure on the BBC.

Our point, however, is that there is a need for an overarching strategy.  We think that without this, campaigns to end the TV licence alone, while perfectly understandable and satisfying in their own way, may ultimately prove to be counter-productive - and may even strengthen the BBC's position in the end.  Those who rest on proposals to end the TV licence system tend to think that commercialising the BBC through advertising or subscription viewing, or a combination of these, will either reform its internal culture or, if not that, then will at least mean that the general public are not forced to fund its output.  They tend to assume that the BBC can, in effect, become another Channel Four: a commercially-operated, nominally-public broadcasting body.  

With due respect, our view is that this is the wrong approach in strategic terms for the following reasons:

1. The BBC needs to be looked upon as an enemy bureaucracy.  It is a base of employment, cultural struggle and moral and financial support, etc., for the Left in Britain, and perhaps always has been.  For that reason alone, it is important that the BBC as an organisation in and of itself is attacked, brought down and destroyed for good, not just reformed.

2. Strategically focusing on the TV licence system is the wrong approach because simply demanding that the BBC reform itself financially puts the initiative with the political and media elites, who can then come up with a new funding model that satisfies those who object to the TV licence system.  The result will most likely be a continuation of the BBC in its present form, possibly even funded out of general taxation.  If that happens, it will be a complete humiliation and defeat for anti-TV licence campaigners as we will all be in a worse position than before; but even if an entirely commercial funding model is found and agreed, the BBC's future will then be assured and all the problems it causes will continue.

3. The example of Channel Four proves that the model of notional public ownership combined with commercial operation will not work. Channel Four is a left-liberal backwater, its output mostly fringe, but it still has some effect on the national culture.  Likewise, the BBC's dangerous tendencies will only continue, even if commercialised.  It is also worth noting that the BBC is already part-commercialised, but that seems to have had no effect on its poisonous culture and ethos.  If the BBC is fully-commercialised and marketised, it will retain its place at the centre of British civic life and as part of the Establishment, and will continue to damage the country and public debate.

4. The vision of a 'commercial BBC' is inherently paradoxical.  A broad-spectrum public service broadcaster cannot also be a commercial broadcaster, as advertising and viewership pressures will ultimately take priority in broadcasting decisions, to the detriment of its putative public mission.  Channel Four only succeeds because it is allowed to cater to a niche audience.  No doubt a Commercial BBC would re-structure and adjust itself to audience capture, which would then raise questions about how it will also fulfill its manifest public mission.  You may ask: Why should this be a problem?  Whatever else they may be, the BBC Board and its executives are politically-adept and will find ways to reconcile the conflicted mission of a 'commercialised' public service broadcaster.  Consequently, a Commercial BBC will potentially be even more powerful and abusive than it is today.  The BBC Board and executives will be able to defend their funding model as entirely commercial, and therefore unassailable, while also using their public status to subvert British life still further. Not that we're suggesting the BBC fulfills its public mission as it is, and it must also be acknowledged that the BBC has pandered to viewer whims for a very long time (the Points of View programme was/is an example of this), but that only reinforces our point that a Commercial BBC posing as a public service broadcaster - with all the dignity and credibility this implies - would be harmful to British public life.