Tory MPs launch sustained questioning of BBC

Extracts from yesterday's Hansard:

John Redwood: "How can the Secretary of State defend a poll tax on the poor and the not very well-off to pay huge salary increases to top BBC staff, to pay very large fees to certain performers, and to undermine private sector competition, which would otherwise be much stronger?"

Andrew Robathan: "If the BBC is to be accountable—after all, we must try to hold it to account—how is it possible to pay a presenter such as Jonathan Ross, never mind his appalling taste, £6 million a year for three years? Hundreds of thousands of people, who are just as funny, would do it for a tenth of the sum."

John Maples: "One of the issues that bothers some of us is that the BBC is taking a great deal of licence payers’ money and a lot of money out of some of its programming to finance its new digital platforms, particularly its website. It is doing that in competition with people in the private sector who have to compete for their revenues and raise their own capital. At some point, that can become really unfair competition and a misuse of licence fee payers’ money." Related link: George Osborne champions the BBC's competitors.

Hugo Swire: "Like most major broadcasters, the BBC’s audience share is already steadily declining, yet unlike many other broadcasters, which are dependent on falling advertising revenue, its income is steadily increasing."

John Whittingdale: "Later this year BT Vision will launch internet protocol television—IPTV—a serious option that will allow video on demand for hundreds if not thousands of movies and seven-day catch-up, as well as the digital channels through Freeview, and HomeChoice already offers that service to some extent. But that is just the beginning. Most broadband providers will move into television, with the consequence that we will have widespread video on demand, so scheduling will become a thing of the past. The viewer will become far more powerful—able to decide what he wants to watch and when, from a huge choice. Nor will he necessarily watch it on a television in the living room, but perhaps on a mobile device or an iPod.  The whole of broadcasting will look very different. Given that, it is strange that the BBC’s charter is to be renewed for 10 years and set in stone for that time. I agree with the Secretary of State that there will still be a role for the BBC, although it will be a different role."

Daniel Kawczynski: "As a Roman Catholic, I sometimes get genuinely very upset by some of the critical ways in which religion is covered. It is occasionally covered with a great deal of disrespect in modern life, particularly on television. Catholics do not always jump up and down when they are offended, but that does not mean that we are not offended."

***

On the subject of broadcasting and culture, ConservativeHome recommends The New Culture Forum's excellent new blog.  This appears in its banner:

"In the last quarter of the 20th century the Right decisively won the important economic arguments. At the same time, in the so-called Culture Wars, the Left were ultimately victorious, and political correctness and cultural relativism triumphed in the arts, academia and large sections of the media. More and more people in Britain are dissatisfied with the deadening hand this has cast over political discourse. We have formed the New Culture Forum as a response to this situation."

Comments

[comstock]

A promise to abolish the licence fee would be a sure fire vote winner for you, but I doubt you've the guts to do it.

[Chris]

The BBC has grown out of control, it used to be a small affordable public broadcaster, now its swanning about like a corporate giant just praying that someone will foot the bill.

This may all be true, but the BBC has become a national treasure which is nigh on untouchable. Yesterday I was laughing whilst reading the BBC news website, one of the top headlines read "BBC Chairman supports pay raises", whats going to come from them next "Tony Blair supports the Prime Minister"? The BBC should be shrunk down to a few channels and the remaining assets sold off. The BBC could then adopt a status similar to Channel 4, where they are a public service broadcaster, but responsible for their own funding.

[Chad]

Why not privatise it, retain 50% for the country's benefit and let it become the British Google?

Better than no more licence fee, through retained 50% ownership there would even be money coming in.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

*yawn*

[Chad]

A positive contribution as always from Mr Lindley!

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

...and indeed the same from someone who has had more parties than Paris Hilton.

The BBC is a quality broadcaster and a national asset, and whilst there are plenty of issues with it, it is a crying shame that a significant minority in the Party wish to blow these out of proportion in a Mailesque frenzy.

[Chad]

"...and indeed the same from someone who has had more parties than Paris Hilton."

:-) (Rolls eyes) That chestnut again!

Oh come on Iain, you've had five leader in just 9 years, more than all the other parties put together.

It will take me some time to catch up with that level of indecision!

[Marcus Wood]

The BBC needs to be privatised but the public won't support the idea.

Why not turn it into a 'mutual' like the building societies used to be? Give every licence-fee payer a single share -let them vote for a board, let the board decide; take the Government out of the loop and leave regulation to the regulator.

Then, when everyone is on digital in 2008, you can abolish the licence fee and replace it with a BBC subscription, just like SKY.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Calm down kids!

[johnC]

'The BBC is a quality broadcaster and a national asset'

Rubbish. It broadcasts a stream of left-wing drivel and degenerate trash. Have you ever watched Dick and Dom in Da Bungalow ?
Mindless vulgarity from beginning to end.
Get rid of the licence fee and let it compete in a free market with the others.

[Stephen McConnell]

As I see it the BBC wants to have its cake and eat it. The BBC's charter commits it to provide high quality broadcasting. Yet the BBC continually wants to expand into the private sector using public funding to support these ventures which is not available to their competitors and puts them at a disadvantage. It is questionable whether this is in line with its charter commitments. The logical solution would be to sell off those elements (such as Radio 1 & 2 and BBC1) which do little more than ape the private sector as franchises and focus on delivering high quality broadcasting.

Tighten down on what is acceptable to spend public money on and franchise the rest of it.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I'm with Iain on this one - the BBC has plenty of shortcomings but the relentless Beeb-bashing that some members of our party indulge in is tiresome to say the least.

Only in Britain, and in the Conservative Party particularly, could you find people so determined to tear apart an institution which, thanks to its long tradition as a purveyor of high-quality broadcasting, is a cherished national institution that is the envy of the world.

[Derek]

I used to believe the BBC needed to remain free from advertising; that it was a unique and very special broadcaster. Now that we have so many other channels and the license fee has gone up so much I have changed my mind.

The BBC has gone down-market and is simply a very privileged broadcaster. If there is still thought to be a need for one channel which produces genuine high quality material and news, then leave the BBC to run that alone for a much reduced license fee. All the other stuff like Eastenders, and make-over programmes should be sold off to the private companies.

[TomTom]

Why not start by amending the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act and decriminalise non-payment of the TV Licence ?

Why should the taxpayer fund prosecutions for non-payment of the TV licence ?

Why doesn't the BBC use the Small Claims Court and pursue civil actions ?

[Serf]

The BBC is a national asset

In the commonly understood meaning of the term asset ....... something for which your are forced to spend billions each year........

[James Hellyer]

"... its long tradition as a purveyor of high-quality broadcasting"

A quick perusal of the Radio Times (other listings magazines are available) would seem to indicate that such a reputation is currently ill deserved, and will doubtless continue to be so while consumers are denied exit power.

Roll on privatisation!

[Michael McGowan]

These dewy-eyed sentiments about the BBC echo the nonsense that the left has pumped out for years about the NHS being the envy of the world. Both institutions are demonstrably the envy of nobody in the developed world. They typify this country's poverty of aspiration. Most of the BBC's output is dull and derivative. Its news output is superficial, trite and invariably slanted in a leftward direction. Noone with a right-of-centre outlook stands a chance of having a successful career with the BBC: ask Michael Gove. Having whipped the BBC back into line courtesy of the Hutton Enquiry and vast dollops of taxpayers' money spent on lawyers, the Government now wants to force taxpayers in a digital age to pay a sharply increased poll tax so that the left can have a tame state broadcaster.

[Wat Tyler]

Well said Serf.

Poll tax telly has no place in digital Britain.

Even setting aside the leftie bias and the hours of drivel, when did you last hear anything on the BBC you hadn't already heard/seen elsewhere? Like on the blogs.

My one regret about cancelling our Sky sub was losing Fox News.

Roll on privatisation.

[Derek]

I would very much like to hear those who defend the current position set out clear reasons why we now need a state-owned broadcaster. It cannot be in order to provide public information, as most viewers will be watching other channels. Perhaps some will say to support the performing arts, though most of the good stuff is sold on to foreign companies at a profit.

Why should Consrvatives support a nationalised industry that distorts the market, unless there is a very good reason?

As has already been proved with other privatised utilities, it is perfectly possible to use legislation to control a service without owning it.

[Richard]

If the BBC is such a national asset then surely people wouldn't mind subscribing to it voluntarily?

It is very hard to justify to those who don't watch the BBC why they should be forced to cough up large amounts of money to have use of a TV.

[Michael McGowan]

It isn't a national asset and there is no justification, especially now that quality broadcasting of all kinds is freely available from a variety of sources independent of the BBC. It is an abusive monopoly which uses taxpayers' money to secure an unfair competitive position. People rightly criticise similar behaviour on the part of major state-controlled French utility companies. Why is the BBC immune from the same criticism?

[malcolm]

Whilst the BBC does not have a monopoly of good programming it certainly has far more programming which is appealing to my taste (which I admit may be not the taste of the majority) than any other commercial channel.
Looking at the BARB statistics (used for advertising purposes) BBC audience reach is building a bigger lead than I can ever remember in 20 years in advertising although its overall share is down as the plethora of commercial channels that we have today did not exist then.
I do not think that privatising the BBC will necerssarily be very popular with the electorate.

[Chad]

Being state owned is holding the BBC back not helping it.

Let it compete properly, we will all benefit as it has an amazing content/media base to build on and really become a worldwide asset to the UK.

It will be easy to sell to the public. Free at the point of use (no more licence fee) funded by increasing private sector involvement.

[backwoodsman]

While al-beeb produces good costume drama and nature films, which are non controversial and very saleable, it is clearly an impossible situation for it to continue delivering news and current affairs output which are manifestly so half baked left wing that they reduce a large proportion of the population to a state of rage.
Al-beeb has created the mess, they should be given a (small) budget and told to go away and sort it out. Or face being broken up.

[Michael McGowan]

Maloclm, I query whether the public really value the privilege of paying their BBC Poll Tax.

[comstock]

"Why not turn it into a 'mutual' like the building societies used to be? Give every licence-fee payer a single share -let them vote for a board, let the board decide; take the Government out of the loop and leave regulation to the regulator.
"

That is actually a very very good idea.

If the public want to keep the licence, they can do so, if they want it reduced or abolished they can vote for a board that would do so.

Either way the decision becomes non-political.

[Chris]

Whilst the BBC does not have a monopoly of good programming it certainly has far more programming which is appealing to my taste (which I admit may be not the taste of the majority) than any other commercial channel.
Malcolm, which programs are the ones to your taste? (I'm asking a serious question here, not a rhetorical one implying you have bad taste). We must of course remember that even if the BBC were privatised there is nothing to say it would stop broadcasting a lot of its shows, I doubt the first thing a privatised BBC would do would be to cancel its most popular programmes.

Michael McGowan, nice post I agree wholly with you.

[Sally Roberts]

Comstock - that is a superb idea!!

We have been here before - I remember the BBC issue being debated during the late 80s. We should have had the guts to grasp the mettle then!

[Sally Roberts]

Sorry - I of course meant "nettle"!!!!!!

[malcolm]

Michael,I do remember seeing a poll (unfortunately can't remember which polling organisation) which showed that the BBC was far more trusted than any political party.Sad but true.

[comstock]

"Comstock - that is a superb idea!!"

err, thanks but Marcus Wood @10.55 came up with it, not me! :D

[Sally Roberts]

Your modesty does you credit! ;-)

[Mark]

The BBC lost my support over the changes to BBC weather and the subsequent handling of complaints and feedback. As James says, with no exit route, the audience is powerless. In my opinion the governors need to do a better job.

[Esbonio]

How anyone can support the BBC in its current state is beyond me. Even if one accepts that there is a role for public service broadcasting (and I am not sure that I do)it does not follow that the BBC model is the correct one. I think the BBC is far too big; most of its output (which leaves me cold) could easily be done by commercial entities, and as for the news and current affairs (which must surely comprise the basis for any claim for public funding), the less said the better.

[malcolm]

Chris,I'm sure most readers of this blog would be utterly bored to hear my taste in TV and radio but you asked!
Shows I rarely miss include Newsnight,Dr Who,Question Time,Bill Oddies Springwatch,Jonathon Ross, anything with Steve Coogan,anything with Michael Palin,various historical dramas and many arts programmes on BBC4.
Radio Any Questions,Jonathan Ross,Julian Worriker,Today and sport on Radio 5.
My daughter also thinks CBBC is great!
Sorry to bore everone else.

[Renny]

My kids love Dick and Dom in Da Bungelow mostly because of its mindless vulgarity. ;-)

[Marcus Wood]

It's a really bad idea to let the debate about the funding of the BBC degenerate into an argument about the quality or otherwise of the output.

TV Programmes are made by people, not corporations. We are lucky to have loads of talent in this country and the BBC are lucky to be able to buy it all without a care for the commercial consequences.

If the BBC were abolished tomorrow the quality of everyone else's output would rise as the talent hoarded by the beeb leeched into other channels.

The idea of a having statutory Licence Fee and an all-powerful state-owned broadcasting and news gathering corporation is the issue here and as Conservatives we are right to oppose it in principle.

We must not allow the urge to please the BBC while we are in opposition (and need sympathetic coverage) blunt our wholehearted desire to change the Corporation.

[Andrew]

"Noone with a right-of-centre outlook stands a chance of having a successful career with the BBC"

Their current chief political editor is a former chairman of the Young Conservatives.....

[Esbonio]

Well said Marcus.

[TaxCutter]

This Tory attack is overdue. The BBC has long abused its "neutral" reputation to produce Labour-supporting programmes and for example on loans for lordships has been unnecessarily silent.

With regards to Andrew's remark - when was Nick Robinson "right-of-centre" even as a YC?

[Andrew]

You honestly think there were leftist YCs in the Thatcher era?

[Sally Roberts]

There were a few - but not many!

[TomTom]

Their current chief political editor is a former chairman of the Young Conservatives.....

Amazing.....and he just doesn't do his job very well as Guido Fawkes has pointed out...........John Cole was so much better

[Henry Whitmarsh]

At least they've sacked Andrew Marr (husband of Ms Ashley, she of the New Statesman) and he now only has Start The Week to bang on about Iraq, Palestine, and why we should all hate America.

I note with interest that the BBC has missed its own recycling and energy targets. Maybe they'll stop lecturing the rest of us.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Also would anyone care to mention one long running drama series on the BBC with even compares to those produced by evil market forces driven networks in the US of A?

Does anyone know whether Barbara Plett still works for the Beeb? I notice that their entire Israel/Palestine staff seems to have changed in the wake of the bias report.

[SimonNewman]

"The idea of a having statutory Licence Fee and an all-powerful state-owned broadcasting and news gathering corporation is the issue here and as Conservatives we are right to oppose it in principle. "

Hear hear Marcus. The license fee is immoral in principle and would still be immoral even if the BBC's entertainment output was far better and their news output far less biased.

[Marcus Wood]

I had to explain to an American businessman quite recently how the BBC works.

I had to tell him about the licence 'fee' that everyone pays even though only 35% ever watch the BBC; about how you have to give your address by law when you buy a TV, about TV Detector vans and licence inspectors, about the 40 or so people who end up in prison every year for non payment of a TV licence, about the prime-ministerial appointments to the board, about the Hutton enquiry, about how the BBC gets paid regardless of viewing figures; about the fact that the BBC has a total monopoly on national FM radio stations, about the millions it makes in book and magazine publishing, new media, film as well as TV and radio which isn't given back to anyone in dividends, etc.

His eyes were like saucers. He was just completely and utterly amazed, - He said it made us sound like communist China; and I agree with him.

[malcolm]

Your American friend doesn't sound very bright if that is what he thought.

[comstock]

Que semma in der jookle goom. Inest der Dansk on der television et der radio est un simlat ost dine goblet.

On semma is la!! Toot est la simonet?

[Sally Roberts]

wot?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

At the end of every programme there should be a figure, in big white figures on a black background. It should be the number of television licenses it took to make that particular programme.

[John Moss]

I note John Wittingdale saying, "..video on demand for hundreds if not thousands of movies and seven-day catch-up.." and "widespread video on demand, so scheduling will become a thing of the past.."

I wrote three years ago about how the BBC could becoem a super ISP, acting as conduit for all the programmes which would be made by everybody from professionals to enthusiasts. Its' only role would be to provide 24 hour news and cover those things which the market wouldn't. After much brain wracking I thought this might extend to bog-snorkelling and cheese-rolling.

This was sent to the DCMS as part of their review of the role of the BBC - no response - and to Wittingdale. Great minds.......?

To fund this, I suggested that Eastenders at 10p an episode would generate £2.3bn at the time exactly the same as the income from the licence fee. If you add all the other content the BBC is sitting on, it certainly shouldn't be sold, it could generate revenues in excess of £30bn if managed properly, enough to raise the personal tax allowance to £10,000.

I'm sure Tim could set up the web site to make it all work!

[Julian Morrison]

BBC doesn't have a reason to exist. Inform the public? Wikipedia does that. Live news worldwide? Blogs do that. Niche programming? Amazon or YouTube. Politically unbiased news? Even BBC can't manage it - Google's machine algorithms and worldwide overview comes closest. High quality TV? Ad-supported stations seem to handle that just fine.

It's outclassed and outdated and running on inertia. It seems to exist mainly to make Doctor Who. Enough already!

[Julian Morrison]

John Moss: people wishing bog-snorkelling videos are directed to the following URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5286044747412666013

Welcome to the 21st century ;-)

[Matt Davis]

"The BBC is a quality broadcaster and a national asset"

Not any more it isn't! In fact it is a long time since it has been either of those things, occasionally they manage a bit of quality programming but those moments are few and far between. As for the BBC being a national asset, national disgrace would be more accurate.

The people of Britain will stand for a downsizing, break up and eventual sell off of this profligate anachronism if they are presented with the facts, especially about how much they stand to save in cold hard cash from their own pockets every single year, whilst still not losing that nice David Attenborough from their screens.

The BBC long ago abrogated any right to expect us all to continue funding their pet projects, wildly overpaid (and very questionable quality wise) "talent", and institutionalised bias and hypocrisy in news output.

[ToMTom]

"The BBC is a quality broadcaster and a national asset"

Then merge it with the Church of England so we can have a Combined State Church - you use the arguments for the BBC that were once used for the Church of England

[Chris]

Chris,I'm sure most readers of this blog would be utterly bored to hear my taste in TV and radio but you asked!
Just thought it would be interesting to hear a list of "quality" television programs. I agree that most of the programs on your list are respectable, but a lot of similar shows are already available on other channels, and I'm sure Michael Palin wouldn't struggle to find a deal with another network!

The people of Britain will stand for a downsizing, break up and eventual sell off of this profligate anachronism if they are presented with the facts, especially about how much they stand to save in cold hard cash from their own pockets every single year, whilst still not losing that nice David Attenborough from their screens.
The problem Matt is how we could ever go about doing this without seeming like the nasty party again. Sadly reform of the BBC requires the BBCs blessing, because if they don't agree with it they don't need to shout it from the rooftops, they already have a direct line to most houses in Britain. Military coups are a thing of the past, far easier just to take control of the BBC and use it to spread propoganda!

To fund this, I suggested that Eastenders at 10p an episode would generate £2.3bn at the time exactly the same as the income from the licence fee. If you add all the other content the BBC is sitting on, it certainly shouldn't be sold, it could generate revenues in excess of £30bn if managed properly, enough to raise the personal tax allowance to £10,000.
The BBC does have massive commercial potential, just waiting to be uncovered. The thing is the BBC currently has a blank chequebook in effect, it just spends more and more and the licence fee goes up and up, there is little incentive for it to pursue routes which might actually make the organisation profitable. Recently the BBC was defending the raises in pay for the directors, claiming they were bringing their pay in line with industry standards, as soon as the BBC has a profit similar to other networks I might just be able to accept that logic!