TV licence (continued)

I wrote yesterday of mixed feelings about the BBC. I still blame the corporation for creating the climate of EU scepticism based on ignorance which allowed the Brexit campaign to flourish and ultimately triumph. However, that is in the past - for now - and of more immediate concern is the cost of the BBC.

To start with, there are the salaries. Listed here are the earnings of the top-paid employees for 2018/19. Note that this list excludes the pay of those people provided by third parties, such as BBC Studios, which also do not have to abide by BBC equal-pay guidelines. (By the way, we are overdue a report on the 2019/20 pay rates.) Now, Gary Lineker is a good presenter, a pleasant fellow who is on the right side of most of today's arguments, but is he really worth £1.75m a year? No doubt the argument is that he would decamp to another broadcaster if his salary were to be cut, but does it really matter if he dispensed his wisdom on another channel?  It is not as if the BBC were the sold provider of football coverage.

Surely the BBC TV should be an alternative to the commercial channels, not a "me-too" outfit. It has pioneered nature programming, the presentation of women's football and of athletics meetings, to name just a few of the worthwhile subjects that were not felt to be viable by independent television. (Nature is now a hot subject, but ironically other channels are largely meeting the demand by re-showing BBC productions, or co-productions involving the BBC.)  That is why the BBC should be holding the ring on local radio, not following the commercial sector into cynical cost-cutting, neglecting the whole point of local broadcasting.

Rather than cutting at the grass roots, a more Reithian move would be to eliminate, or at worst minimise, the overblown central political unit, which probably survives because it tickles the egos of politicians. I doubt that it informs or entertains many of my fellow over-75s.