The usual justification for our being coerced into paying the illiberal licence fee is the BBC's "quality broadcasting".
Perhaps, like me, you have watched BBC output in recent years and scoffed at that assertion. Nevertheless, let us agree that the production of "quality broadcasting" is a noble ambition - although whether we should be forced to pay for it is of course another question.
Given that we do have to pay for it, in furtherance of that ambition, should our national broadcaster not pick up Melvyn Bragg's South Bank Show? So argues John Lloyd in a column over at this weekend's FT (which begins, alas for that great journalist - "When this column appears we will know what government we have." Well, who can blame him?)
His suggestion made me think about the wider role of the BBC. Regardless of my views on the propriety of having a national broadcaster, given that we've got one, and given the declared remit, to my mind it's clear that they should take up Bragg's highbrow, thoughtful arts review. But they won't (despite the fact that it must cost tuppence ha'penny to produce) because they're just as concerned with ratings and the market as the commercial channels with whom their status and purpose supposedly means they do not compete.
It seems to me that we therefore have the worst of all worlds - a public services broadcaster whose existence is justified by some special purpose in output terms, a purpose which - with occasional exceptions - it has put to one side.
So let me ask you two questions:
- What do you think should happen with the BBC in the new Parliament?
- What do you think will happen?
Related post: my view on what should happen in broadcasting regulations, if the BBC subsidy is to remain