Auntie’s autumn

Over the last few years, many in Reform have toyed with the idea of scrapping the BBC. Farage himself has spoken of his desire to get rid of the license fee, to the cheer of many on the center right. Anyone hoping Prime Minister Farage transforms the Beeb into a bastion of patriotism is surely mistaken as to the possibility of doing so. Like you, I would love nothing more than TV dramas set around the life of Nelson that goes on for nine series, but the appointment of an anti-wokey bloke in Number 10 isn’t going to make this happen. Even making Lee Anderson Director-General would do little to change the BBC from the institutionalised rot that has gripped it for so long. 

Though many talk about defunding the BBC, and simply leaving it to wither on the vine without the sweet nectar of a pensioner’s TV license, this would still leave a wounded institution diametrically opposed to Farage blaring attacks into old peoples’ eye balls ad infinitum. Not only would such a move produce scorn from the usual suspects, but it would also be used as an excuse for worsened television productions rather than the reality of talentless screenwriters making cringe-enducing crap that has been going on ever since Jeremy Clarkson punched his producer. I can already imagine all the “yankification” articles written about a Reform government that refuses to support British arts, and the faux patriotism that goes along with it. 

In transforming the BBC, it’s also important to take out Channel 4 at the same time, which basically acts as the broadcasting arm of The Guardian

Join Britain’s most civilised publication.

Challenge the consensus. Access rigorous analysis.

Archive article

Don't worry. You can continue reading by subscribing to get full access.

Subscribe

Already a member? Log in.

Premium article

Don't worry. You can continue reading by subscribing to get full access.

Subscribe

Already a member? Log in.

Subscribe Now

In transforming the BBC, it’s also important to take out Channel 4 at the same time, which basically acts as the broadcasting arm of The Guardian. Between the two services, they own a huge number of terrestrial channels — to the point that you could reasonably call both a monopoly needing to be broken up. BBC Studios also operates all UKTV channels — such as Dave — which it uses only for old content. BBC Four is perhaps the strangest, only operating for a short time each evening. To anyone with an outside perspective, it appears to be a complete negation of responsibility for public broadcasters to have TV channels showing literally nothing for large periods of the day. 

The fact these institutions are holding on to expensive real estate and doing precious little with it is the perfect excuse to take a sledgehammer to the whole thing. My proposal is not to simply get rid of the BBC and Channel 4: the job losses alone would create headaches for any government, and there exists a demographic who would be incredibly sad to see the end of Great British Bake Off and GoggleBox. Rather, these spots should be ripped from their clutches and sold off to a closed auction of exclusively British investors. 

The BBC itself, alongside Channel 4, should have all direct funding taken away, but the license fee should be kept in place. They should be sold off in a similar vein to Thatcher’s dealings with British Telecom in the 80s, whereby 50 per cent of the company was sold off to the public with the incentive of free shares. This would, to a degree, keep the Britpoppers happy in the knowledge that regular viewing could continue as normal. Crucially however, both the Beeb and the apparatchiks of Channel 4 would be forced to find a new home further up the channel list, keeping them contained between Babestation and Babestation +1. Imagine Ian Hislop tapping his pen next to a dancing girl in cheap lingerie. What a beautiful image. If a part of the population wants to continue paying their license fee to maintain this type of thing, then let them. This way, those who feel a personal connection to these archaic organisations can continue funding them if they wish, far away from everyone else.

In keeping with the anti-monopoly vibe that I feel would be the best mode of attack, channels should be limited to one per broadcaster, producing a level of productive competition completely unseen within the confines of British broadcasting. For starters, it would make every hour of viewing far more valuable than they currently are, and introduce a level of cinematic meritocracy that has simply never existed in this country’s incestuous world of TV production. The next Nigel Kneale with a catalog of successful shows under his belt could find himself being fought over by upwards of seven channels wrestling for viewership.

How quickly would BBC loyalists soon lose interest in their usual pig trough of guest panel shows when GBTV is making an adaptation of Flashman? Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but the lack of serious rivalries has singularly turned British television into little more than half-hearted light entertainment mixed with unbearable tweeness. It would only take a few years of refreshing effort put into new vehicles of television to make the current dearth of cooking shows and humdrum programmes presented by Romesh Ranganathan quickly lose all appeal. 

The best way to view the Beeb is as a vehicle that has stunted Britain’s creative fields, rather than as the sole institution that champions it, as so many are want to do. The Avalon guild, whereby every BBC “talent” is tied up to a small network of uncontroversial comedians and actors is the clearest sign of the lack of energy that could easily find itself working at the heights of television. As an institution, it never had much time for genuine geniuses such as Peter Greenaway or Kenneth Branagh. Even in the “good old days” of alternative comedy, they continued to source unfunny comedians exclusively from Footlights until the practice was attacked on class lines. The success of the incredibly bad Phil Wang is something of a hangover of this.

Internal worries about YouTube and Netflix etc. has not shaken the BBC off this course, or instilled a will to put their ever depleting resources into risky prestige television. Rather, they have continued to produce cheap, forgettable viewing increasingly for the lowest denominator, as if they still see ITV as their main form of competition. The long standing demographic-based system of production, by which the Beeb commissions programmes for certain parts of the country such as the elderly or ethnic minorities, remains an archaic and stupid system that is unlikely to change. 

Everyone understands that the BBC has genuinely existential issues in the form of declining revenue from the TV Licence. The money is slowly trickling away, making it ever harder to truly fight with American studios, who are buoyed by investors. The singular response, as far as I can tell, has been a call for a subscription model for foreigners and British people alike. Those proposing this evidently live in a different era when Pride & Prejudice box sets found popularity overseas. Perhaps they believe they can make Blue Planet IX with an AI Attenborough as its narrator, or are just unaware of the lack of “soft power” the institution supposedly once had. 

Detaching the BBC from its monopolistic position, and creating competition among public broadcasters, might save them

The problem with letting the BBC and Channel 4 keep hold of its tight grip of public broadcasting, is the inevitable job losses for the wider TV and film production sector. Hundreds of thousands of people still work within the industry, and jobs are already drying up in part because of the BBC’s lack of cash. I’m told cameramen in particular are fighting over very limited jobs. Because of the BBC’s position, a drop in BBC Studio’s productions would be the death knell for Britain’s cultural outputters. Detaching the BBC from its monopolistic position, and creating competition among public broadcasters, might save them. The alternative is for Britain’s film industry to be limited to areas of Liverpool and Leeds being used as cheaper options than New York as the backdrop for Gotham City. 

The funny thing is that every person with an opinion on the BBC acknowledges that its funding model is unsustainable, and recognises that it is trapped in an unsurmountable death spiral. Its defenders propose nothing more than a fighting retreat towards ever cheaper programming as it brings down the whole industry with it. Its attackers, on the other hand, have rarely presented a concrete vision on how public broadcasting should look like even after their wish of seeing the organisation destroyed comes to fruition. Much like the public’s relationship to the NHS, a stalwart defence can always be made for the BBC on quasi-patriotic grounds, which will be inevitably mixed with the thick treacle of nostalgia that always excises our very worst national characteristics. A Reform government setting out to obliterate the BBC would find themselves against lawyers and popular consciousness in a political fight simply isn’t worthwhile.

Far better would be to take away the actual channels that are owned by the state and which state broadcasters fail to utilise in a single act of parliament. This will only be met with grumblings from Ofcom, and the opposition. Correctly surmising that the BBC is destined for financial ruin without direct funding from the exhausted tax payer, and offering a fairer alternative that keeps British broadcasting in the hands of British companies is the best and simplest way to deal with the Beeb. Taking away its power without attempting to repeal its status as a chartered corporation would keep this hypothetical government away from a lawfare campaign it would in all likelihood lose.