This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/07/guardian-view-on-bbc-deal-jeopardise-public-support

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on the BBC deal: it could jeopardise, rather than underpin, public support The Guardian view on the BBC deal: it could jeopardise, rather than underpin, public support
(35 minutes later)
The chancellor says his first all-Conservative budget will frame the politics of the next five years. It will lay the groundwork for a lower-tax and low-welfare Britain, where the state is in retreat. This brave new world coincides with the renewal of the BBC charter, the agreement that defines its remit and governance, as well as the new financial settlement that sets the level of the licence fee. The BBC is one of Britain’s great national institutions. It reflects, informs and shapes the public realm. It is admired abroad and widely loved at home. It is also a player in the fierce, highly commercial digital wars, a player whose privileges are under unprecedented attack. It needs the support of the people who pay £145 a year for it. That should be won through open and transparent funding negotiations. The events of the past week were neither. Secret talks ended with the BBC agreeing to pick up the tab for free TV licences for pensioners, thereby becoming dangerously enmeshed in the politics of social policy in a way that could jeopardise rather than underpin public support. The chancellor says his first all-Conservative budget will frame the politics of the next five years. It will lay the groundwork for a lower-tax and low-welfare Britain, where the state is in retreat. This brave new world coincides with the renewal of the BBC charter, the agreement that defines its remit and governance, as well as the new financial settlement that sets the level of the licence fee. The BBC is one of Britain’s great national institutions. It reflects, informs and shapes the public realm. It is admired abroad and widely loved at home. It is also a player in the fierce, highly commercial digital wars, a player whose privileges are under unprecedented attack. It needs the support of the people who pay £145 a year for it. That should be won through open and transparent funding negotiations. The events of the past week were neither. Secret talks ended with the BBC agreeing to pick up the tab for free TV licences for pensioners, thereby becoming dangerously enmeshed in the politics of social policy in a way that could jeopardise rather than underpin public support.
No one at the BBC, neither the chair of the trust, Rona Whitehead, who is supposed to be the guardian of its governance, nor the director general, Tony Hall, defends the process. Sir Michael Lyons thought he had beaten back the same plan when he was chairman five years ago. Then, he agreed to bear the cost of the BBC World Service. In the Commons on Monday, John Whittingdale, the culture secretary who only in February chaired the committee that concluded “No future licence fee negotiations must be conducted in the way of the 2010 settlement”, ducked the invitation to explain how exactly the same thing had just happened again. At the very least, the terms of this deal must now be published so that Mr Osborne can be held to account. No one at the BBC, neither the chair of the trust, Rona Fairhead, who is supposed to be the guardian of its governance, nor the director general, Tony Hall, defends the process. Sir Michael Lyons thought he had beaten back the same plan when he was chairman five years ago. Then, he agreed to bear the cost of the BBC World Service. In the Commons on Monday, John Whittingdale, the culture secretary who only in February chaired the committee that concluded “No future licence fee negotiations must be conducted in the way of the 2010 settlement”, ducked the invitation to explain how exactly the same thing had just happened again. At the very least, the terms of this deal must now be published so that Mr Osborne can be held to account.
The BBC might not defend the process, but it does defend the deal. Lord Hall believes that in the course of five days he managed to get agreement to make the licence fee fit for the multi-platform age; the burdensome “top-slicing” of the licence fee to provide cash for the broadband roll-out will end; and the licence fee itself will be uprated in line with the consumer price index. In cash terms, the deal means no actual cut. So far so good.The BBC might not defend the process, but it does defend the deal. Lord Hall believes that in the course of five days he managed to get agreement to make the licence fee fit for the multi-platform age; the burdensome “top-slicing” of the licence fee to provide cash for the broadband roll-out will end; and the licence fee itself will be uprated in line with the consumer price index. In cash terms, the deal means no actual cut. So far so good.
But what of the principle? What of a world where part of benefits policy is in the gift of Britain’s national broadcaster? This is the third settlement in a row where the chancellor of the day has raided the licence fee to fund some other project. First it was the digital switchover, and then the same fund was redirected to extending broadband. In 2005, it was the cost of the World Service. And now, pensioner policy. This may be the way the licence fee ends, absorbed bit by bit into general government spending.But what of the principle? What of a world where part of benefits policy is in the gift of Britain’s national broadcaster? This is the third settlement in a row where the chancellor of the day has raided the licence fee to fund some other project. First it was the digital switchover, and then the same fund was redirected to extending broadband. In 2005, it was the cost of the World Service. And now, pensioner policy. This may be the way the licence fee ends, absorbed bit by bit into general government spending.
The independence of the BBC’s funding, independent not just of government but advertisers too, is an integral part of its status as a force for the national good. Commercial TV makes many great programmes – not least because of the competition from the BBC – but Sky, ITV and Channel 4 are not public institutions. Tory politicians recognise but often seem to struggle with this idea. It is not only Conservatives who sometimes resent its news coverage, but it is only Conservatives who attribute its alleged statist bias to the way it is funded. David Cameron is one of a long line of prime ministers who have had bruising encounters in BBC studios, but during the election he linked his irritation at repeated challenges about the impact of austerity from BBC journalists with the future of the BBC itself. Reporters on the campaign trail were not so sure that a remark about closing down the corporation was made in jest. The independence of the BBC’s funding, independent not just of government but advertisers too, is an integral part of its status as a force for the national good. Commercial TV makes many great programmes – not least because of the competition from the BBC – but Sky, ITV and Channel 4 are not public institutions. Tory politicians recognise but often seem to struggle with this idea. It is not only Conservatives who sometimes resent its news coverage, but it is only Conservatives who attribute its alleged statist bias to the way it is funded. David Cameron is one of a long line of prime ministers who have had bruising encounters in BBC studios, but during the election he linked his irritation at repeated challenges about the impact of austerity from BBC journalists with the future of the BBC itself. Reporters on the campaign trail were not so sure that a remark about closing down the corporation was made in jest.
With negotiations for the renewal of the charter, the real fight for the future of the BBC begins. Both the chancellor and the culture secretary have indicated that the funding settlement is contingent on a “satisfactory” outcome. To Mr Whittingdale and many of his colleagues that means smaller and leaner. The threat of decriminalising licence fee evasion, which could cost the BBC £200m, still hangs in the air. While Mr Osborne claims to like Strictly Come Dancing and to believe in the breadth of the BBC, both he and Mr Cameron think its web presence has become quasi-imperial. Faced with such a hostile environment, it is easy to see why the director general defends the deal. But the more blurred the distinction between corporation and government, the harder it becomes to defend it for what it is: a great public institution. With negotiations for the renewal of the charter, the real fight for the future of the BBC begins. Both the chancellor and the culture secretary have indicated that the funding settlement is contingent on a “satisfactory” outcome. To Mr Whittingdale and many of his colleagues that means smaller and leaner. The threat of decriminalising licence fee evasion, which could cost the BBC £200m, still hangs in the air. While Mr Osborne claims to like Strictly Come Dancing and to believe in the breadth of the BBC, both he and Mr Cameron think its web presence has become quasi-imperial. Faced with such a hostile environment, it is easy to see why the director general defends the deal. But the more blurred the distinction between corporation and government, the harder it becomes to defend it for what it is: a great public institution.