Missing the point

I have received a lot of stick today for my article on enfranchising the licence fee-payer. Broadly my main point was that every BBC Licence fee payer should have the right to take part in major decisions of the BBC - such as whether or not the BNP appeared on Question time. I wrote an article that was published on the Conservative Home Website and I reproduce it below for your perusal:

"Have we all the missed the point about the debate on the BNP appearance on Question Time?

The issue is not whether the BBC should have invited Mr Griffin. The issue is that the licence-fee payer had no right to make a decision either way. In fact the licence-fee payer was disenfranchised from this decision.

I have that licence-fee payers must be given the chance to vote on major decisions made by the BBC (including programming quality, executive and celebrity pay and the level of the licence fee).

Each licence fee payer would be given a vote via a Pin number, in which they could register their voting intentions on various issues.

Recent major controversies that the BBC has been involved in (Jonathan Ross, the Gaza charity appeal and now the BNP), have been all the more controversial, because the decisions made have been decided by senior management alone.

The only involvement has been the so called 'court of public opinion', politicians and the media.

In the BNP's case, opinion seems to have veered between Unite against Fascism, media commentators and Mark Byford, with the genuine licence fee payer having no real say.

Such a state of affairs can no longer be allowed to continue. In an age of personal empowerment, the BBC can no longer act as a 1950s paternalistic institution, enforcing its decisions on its customers.

If we are to have to pay the licence fee, then it is right we should have a genuine chance to be involved in BBC decisions. It is we, the licence fee payer, who should have been consulted - and then decided whether Mr Griffin appeared and no one else.

PS In case your wondering, I was in favour of the BBC decision as I believe that it is better to fight evil with truth, rather than sweep it under the carpet. I also believe that Mr Griffin's shambolic performance would have thankfully have cost him thousands of votes.

This article follows a previous article I wrote on the subject some months ago:

"Time to emancipate Licence Fee Payers and end the BBC’s feudal monarchy

If we are to keep the Licence Fee, then it is time to emancipate those who are to forced to pay. At present, whether the BBC is good or bad, no Licence-Fee payer has any genuine say-so about programming, no genuine right of consultation about BBC operations and no right to question the level of the Licence Fee. Of course there are always the sham consultations (in which most things are decided in advance), votes in Parliament about the Licence Fee and an ability to complain by telephone, email etc etc etc.

But none of this amounts to very much in reality. If the BBC chooses to over pay its presenters, do we have any real say? If the BBC is biased, do we have any real right of address? If we feel that the BBC need not own travel guides or even local radio stations, do we have any real chance of stopping it? If we feel the Licence Fee is too high, can we get it reduced? Of course not. The BBC has a monopoly not just over broadcasting, but has put a straitjacket over every Licence Fee payer in the land. Just a little wriggle room, but no real movement.

So how do we change this? Well, if Licence Payers were born free, but are everywhere in chains, it's time to break the chains. Every Licence Fee Payer should be given a pin number and be allowed to vote - via the Internet - annually on the BBC’s performance. Questions could include the quality of programmes, the level of BBC Operational activity (i.e what they should run and not run), salaries, and judgements on the behaviour and standards of BBC programmes. There are various options as to how this could be done. For those who want to ensure Parliamentary input, the questions could be decided by an independent Committee of MPs and Peers, to be ratified by the respective Chambers. For those who think it should be, entirely in the hands of Citizens, questions could be set by Licence Fee Payers and there would be a vote on the questions. Every five years, there could be a vote as to whether to retain the Licence Fee, retain part of the Licence Fee (and mix it with advertising), abolish the Licence Fee and have full advertising, or abolish the Licence Fee and have voluntary subscription.

BBC management like to justify their actions by stating that everything occurs is because of the wishes of its viewers – or even ‘stake holders’. If this is really true lets make that a reality by letting hard-pressed Licence Fee payers have a genuine stake in what goes on......"

Well my idea, has not gone down well in some quarters. Various insults have been hurled at me on the Conservative Home website. Even the intellectual wizard (and comment Editor of the Times), Danny Finkelstein in the Times Comment Blog has described my idea as "one of the worst policy ideas he has heard in his life".

Well, not much encouragement. Enough to make me to change my mind?

But I ask again, what is so wrong about giving licence fee payers some say in the major decisions of the BBC? At the moment the Corporation is able to do what it wants, without the licence fee payer having any real say over key decisions. Why is it so ludicrous to involve them in decision making of the BBC, thus giving people a real stake in their programming?

By Rob Halfon ~ Working hard for Harlow, Hastingwood, Nazeing, Roydon & Sheering. http//roberthalfon.blogspot.com