The Future of the BBC

[Serial_Apologist]

My main interest is Radio, and in particular Radio 3. I welcome the approach of the new Controller, and hope he will be permitted to distance R3 further from CFM, Jazz FM, etc.

I think a lot of us do as well - we just wonder if and how long it will take for any change to seep through the collective psyche at the beeb.

[Russ]

The terms of reference are set by the Secretary of State for DCMS, who has also as it were picked the jury, and presumably will ultimately act as the judge at the end of the process.

I think Whittingdale's central problem, and he is acutely aware of it, is that the majority of supporters of the BBC and of the current licence fee system are Conservative voters.

Russ

[MrGongGong]

I think Whittingdale's central problem, and he is acutely aware of it, is that the majority of supporters of the BBC and of the current licence fee system are Conservative voters.

Who voted for people many of whom are fundamentally opposed to the licence fee and would like everything in the universe to be subject to "the market"

[Gordon]

.... I imagine myself on a televised CMS select committee meeting and telling them what I think of them

Well that might be unlikely but not impossible - you now have the next best thing, respond to this consultation [I have feeling you will anyway!!]. And that goes for everyone who has something to say either pro or con the BBC, either individually or as part of a collective. You have until October to get your ideas straight and send them in!! This opportunity is rare so use it.

[Russ]

The DCMS BBC Charter review consultation document (pdf) is here, btw.

Russ

[french frank]

you now have the next best thing, respond to this consultation [I have feeling you will anyway!!]

I suppose so. Though most of what I/we/FoR3 wanted to say was in our response to the Select Committee's consultation.

It's tricky: personally, I wouldn't want to hammer the BBC at the moment. Last time, under Labour, it was safer to be critical.

[Russ]

(beginning to marshall some thoughts on BBC governance), I am opposed to giving the task of BBC governance to OFCOM, because:

- OFCOM, whilst an excellent regulator, is simply not geared up to take on the task of BBC governance (and I strongly doubt OFCOM would want the job);

- in the same way that the relationship between BBC Executive and Trust has been criticised as being 'too cosy', an equivalent charge could be made against OFCOM were it to hold both the regulatory and governance functions of the BBC;

- if OFCOM were to take on BBC governance, an inevitable question would arise as to why OFCOM is not taking on governance roles in the other bodies and industries it regulates.

Having said that, there is one area I would be in favour of OFCOM taking a greater role, and that is over the initiation and processing of BBC PVTs.

Russ

[french frank]

Having said that, there is one area I would be in favour of OFCOM taking a greater role, and that is over the initiation and processing of BBC PVTs.

And possibly aspects of the regular service reviews now carried out by the Trust?

[Russ]

And possibly aspects of the regular service reviews now carried out by the Trust?

Hmmm, that's a big and crucial question. I am strongly in favour of the retention of the service licences and their review mechanisms (as you know!), but my inclination is to keep them under the responsibility of the Governance body (whoever or whatever that may be in the future), rather than the Regulator. The fact that the current BBC Trust has been somewhat derelict over the content of the service licences is not in itself a reason to move the responsibility for them to the Regulator in my view. (PVTs do seem to me to be 'bigger' matters, and thus I feel there is a legitimate role for the Regulator to take a greater role in them.) Besides which, I do believe the Governance function needs to have intimate acquaintance with what the Executive is doing, and of monitoring it. In that sense, there is of necessity a symbiotic relationship between the Governance and the Executive. I do not believe OFCOM would be suited to take this on; indeed, they could roll over to whatever the Executive decides more than the Trust do already, so I fear the service licence process could go from bad to worse if it were given to the Regulator.

I think I might be warming to the notion of an 'ofBeeb'.

(The idea of a new quango appealing to the ideological wing of the Minister's jury is probably somewhat remote, albeit ironic and a bit hilarious should the Government go for that option!)

Russ

[wenotsoira]

I think that sadly the BBc has no future. The governments of whatever colour all want rid of it.

[french frank]

my inclination is to keep them under the responsibility of the Governance body (whoever or whatever that may be in the future)

Yes, probably, on second thoughts. I was wondering if the govt seems bent on abolishing the Trust, what they would come up with instead as a form of governance.

On funding, I can't see the difficulty with having a commission with the teeth of IPSA: if IPSA says MPs must have a pay rise, the government 'regretfully' has to accept the verdict of the independent body, with no mechanism for MPs to refuse the increase.

If the BBC had to deal with a body with that kind of independence it would be up to them to argue their case for the funding they needed, and no matter how 'regretful' the government was, it would have to fork out. No possibility of having Foreign & Commonwealth or Works & Pensions expenditure lumped on to the BBC either.

[Gordon]

As a continuation of the R1/R2 future above in this thread this from Helen Boaden might add to that discussion. Note the comments from readers below the article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/helen-boaden/radio-1-and-radio2-listeners-should-decide-future_b_7817036.html

[MrGongGong]

Note the comments from readers below the article.

"Pass on rado one, but keep radio two. four, World servce and classic fm. God, i'm getting old!"

"It's simple. Let those who want BBC Radio pay for it. I don't and won't."

Sadly, many many people (including several in the government) really do believe that the licence fee should be replaced
in which case

bye bye R3 et al

[teamsaint]

As a continuation of the R1/R2 future above in this thread this from Helen Boaden might add to that discussion. Note the comments from readers below the article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hele...b_7817036.html

some interesting and very pertinent points in the article.

The 40% of R1 daytime that is speech must surely be comprised ( from the little I occasionally hear) principally of presenter banter.

the comments at the bottom must be made up by a particularly nasty machiavellian government advisor.

[french frank]

Sadly, many many people (including several in the government) really do believe that the licence fee should be replaced

So do I.

2010: BBC must take over funding for World Service from F&CO, but breathe a sigh of relief: they win the battle over taking on over-75s licence funding after all.

2015: BBC must take over funding of over-75s licences from DW&P, but breathe a sigh of relief: no legislation to decriminalise non payment of licence fee after all.

2019: Non payment of licence fee decriminalised, but breathe a sigh of relief ………………?????

And so on, until the licence fee payer is footing the bill for more and more and the BBC is getting less and less for making programmes.

The licence fee is a government's great weapon for attacking the BBC.