A quick she/me on Polly Toynbee this morning, discussing the BBC’s potential top-sliced future:

She: ‘The BBC has many dangerous and powerful enemies. Rupert Murdoch has his press lobbing relentlessly against the BBC, wanting it reduced to a US-style public subscription service offering only education and information, and no competition with the commercial sector. ITV is ailing and tries to blame the BBC, though analysts say its own disastrous management and OnDigital failure caused its present plight. Other predators eye the licence fee. If the BBC does well, enemies claim it’s unfair competition, but if its ratings sank badly, they’d say it no longer deserved a universal licence fee.’

Me: This is such tired rhetoric. Only when it comes to frank discussions of the BBC licence fee do people start discussing ‘enemies’, ‘predators’, etc. There are many reasonable, serious people that hold the view that the BBC is either over-funded or that the public funds should be spread amongst other would-be PSB providers. These people are not all in the pay of the BBC’s enemies or unnamed predators — many just think it would be more rational and efficient to spend the money differently, or spend less money altogether.

She: ‘The danger is that clever, dynamic ministers like Purnell itch to do something emphatic and new.’

Me: So do Ofcom!

She: ‘Three independent recent polls show the licence fee is not only acceptable, but a majority of people would pay more than the current level to keep the BBC.’

Me: Great, then let’s make the payment voluntary — then those who value the BBC more highly can subsidise the rest of us. But seriously, willingness-to-pay surveys are highly flawed measurement devices compared to the real market.

She: ‘Transparent taxes for specific services are increasingly popular: you see what you get for your cash.’

Me: I wouldn’t call any tax popular… and of course sometimes you see what you don’t get for your cash.