Kent Solicitor Martin Sewell argues that it is time for the BBC to live up to its expressed concern for the disadvantaged and to end a regressive tax on the poor.
Since the Budget, no Coalition spokesman can appear on our State Broadcasting networks without being asked about the effects of its decisions upon the poor and whether the necessary financial constraints imposed by our national financial problems are unacceptably “regressive”.
It is a theme that may soon rival another media pre-occupation - that of “hypocrisy” - but so far, none of the Coalition members has thought to invite the questioners to reflect upon the BBC’s own exceedingly privileged position, and what greater contribution it may yet make to the redistribution of wealth, not least by example.
Thanks to its Charter and supporting legislation, the BBC stands in a uniquely privileged position in public life. It imposes its own kind of poll tax, the Licence fee. Unlike elected Mayors or Police Chiefs, its governance is not only free of political control but any form of mandate or effective oversight. Its Trustees are not democratically accountable to anyone, thus freeing it to dispose influence and patronage throughout the population on a present scale unimaginable by any Tudor Monarch.
It has a £3billion budget, larger than the Foreign Office. Its scale of hospitality and patronage is immense. It sets the political agenda, thanks to access as great as any Press Baron, and can make or break anyone’s reputation, having the resources to out-litigate all but the richest. It sets standards in the public mind, not least amongst the young who see wealth showered upon folk whose talents may not be obviously proportionate to the rewards they receive.
It can no longer be a surprise that so many children harbour no greater ambition than celebrity. Being famous for being famous has become a growth industry when many others have declined, and even the least have intuitively understood the economic benefits of having been blessed and enbraced by the institution. It is not what one’s remuneration that matters. Think of the consequent opportunities - the substantial repeat fees, the book deals, the invitations, personal appearances, advertising voice-overs, celebrity endorsements.
I was mildly shocked yesterday to learn that the next door neighbour of George Harrison’s widow ( living in a £20m House ) is Bob from the ‘Likely Lads”. I mean no disrespect to Mr Bewes, but “Didn’t he do well?”
It is almost a wonder that the BBC does not replace audition by auction, but like many safely ensconsed institutions, it has no need to review its business model, it has its own form of Peter's Pence - the License fee.
The comparison between Peter’s Pence and the Licence Fee bears reflection from those with a knowledge of history.
Both were a a method of generating money for a perceived personal and societal good; both were/are a form of poll tax. Both operated by transferring wealth from the relatively poor to a massively wealthy Institution (and it is hard to think how the modern BBC significantly differs from that of the unreformed Medieval Church in its self-righteous ideology, wealthy Prelates, reach, pride and patronage).
The Medieval Church however was more merciful. It did not tax those whose hearths were worth an annual rental of less than 30 pence. The Medieval Church did not however have the efficiency to undertake the kind of surveillance open to the BBC neither did it employ such relentless Javert-like enforcers, as Charles Moore has documented.
In the 13th Century only £20 1s 9d was sent to Rome. Last year over 150,000 were prosecuted for not paying their Television watching tax. Many of these will be Claimants, Pensioners, students, and poor “hard-working families”, and many of them primarily watch commercial broadcasters. If they can afford an internet connection upon which much investment has been made, to the detriment of the private sector, they probably rarely visit the massively resourced BBC websites.
The BBC has the insight to know that it does embody a progressive liberal ethos. It also knows its tax is regressive - if it doesn’t it needs to sack its economic editors forthwith.
It ought to have concern that pursuing the poorest through the Courts (and potentially to imprisonment) is a deeply oppressive response to civil debt that would have shocked Charles Dickens.
I know I am far from alone in my criticism of the BBC but I think my approach to solving the problem may have an innovative appeal.
Some of the most successful campaigns have been won by those using the opponent’s values against the institution in need of reform.
Consider Luther and the Catholic Church. He did not cavil at the mission - only the methods. William Wliberforce, Gandhi and Martin Luther King all employed an approach that was surprisingly echoed and well articulated by Bill Clinton when he said there was nothing that is wrong with the USA that cannot be cured by what is right with the USA. Each in their turn took the professed values of their opponents and demanded that they be lived up to.
So it should be for the BBC. Their own standards should be used as drivers for the engine of change. They will not comfortably live with the charge of hypocrisy for long. They must free the poor from servitude to the over-privileged Broadcasters.
Such a reduction in income stream will require change but let not them not think me lacking in suggestions as to how they might successfully navigate the change, and renew their liberal credentials in the process.
Are they unhappy at wealth differentia ? Let their pay structures set an example by narrowing. Let their contracts require a good percentage of the performer’s spin-off income to be shared with the medium they made them.
Are they opposed to equal contribution from all because it is regressive ? Let them ease that burden by releasing those with a household income of less than £16k pa from liability to pay their Licence Fee.
Do they oppose Prison overcrowding? Let them ease the pressure by forgoing such enforcement options.
Are they outraged at troughing politicians? Let them cut back hospitality.
Do they worry about police or nurses numbers being reduced? Let there be fewer publicly paid employees at Glastonbury or the World Cup.
Do they mock politicians who say ‘We are all in this together”? Let them demonstrate that they are ready to “feel our pain ”.
All our Government Departments are looking at taking a 25% reduction in resources. Do any of us seriously elieve that our State Broadcaster would be incapable of fulfilling its Charter obligations to a perfectly adequate degree if its income is ‘only” £2.25 billion - or maybe even less? It is important that a society be defended, policed, well administered and that those genuinely unable to care for themselves be modestly supported. “Entertained” and “over informed” by 24 hours news may just fall outside the core functions we absolutely must continue to afford in our currently economically straightened times.
Many of us may have echoed Henry II “Will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest.” We do not have to make martyrs, but we surely could cut the over-mighty down to size a tad by not letting this crisis go to waste.
