What the bbc needs is reform rather than revolution | thearticle

When the Tories won their landslide election victory two months ago, the BBC must have known that there would be a reckoning. For as long as anyone can remember, its coverage has been

pro-European and anti-Conservative. Lord Hall, the Director-General, announced his impending departure — jumping before he was pushed.  But the Corporation’s top brass probably did not

expect Downing Street to open hostilities quite so quickly. Plans to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee have been swiftly followed by suggestions from a No.10 source, widely

assumed to be Dominic Cummings himself, that the BBC’s empire will be dismantled, the rump to be financed by subscription. Not surprisingly, the empire is striking back. Damian Green, once

Theresa May’s de facto deputy Prime Minister, has described such notions as “cultural vandalism” — and he is not alone on the Tory benches. Conservative voters dislike the BBC’s political

bias, but they make up a big proportion of its most loyal viewers and especially listeners.  Having fired a shot across the BBC’s bows, the Government would be wise to think carefully about

its next step. “For fools rush in where angels fear to tread,” as Pope puts it. Boris Johnson is certainly no angel, but neither is he anybody’s fool. He has learned from his former editor

and mentor Charles Moore, whose monumental biography of Margaret Thatcher teaches the lesson that winning the political and economic arguments avails even a dominant Prime Minister little if

the culture war is lost by default.  Hence the focus on the BBC, which has been such a thorn in the side of successive Tory leaders. More easily than, say, the judiciary or the

universities, the nation’s publicly owned broadcaster can be pressured or even coerced by the Government. Paradoxically, however, that is a good reason for not taking on the BBC directly,

let alone dismembering it. The power of the state is more formidable in the threat than the execution.  Tony Hall himself has conceded that the licence fee system may have to be replaced by

subscription. The best way to stiffen resistance to change is to threaten the arm’s length principle that was integral to the Corporation’s charter. Any attempt to bully the BBC will

backfire, because many of its programmes are popular. The ones that centre-Right politicians tend to dislike — Newsnight, Today, Question Time — are less important to most of the public.

There is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. There is a case for returning to the Reithian principles on which the BBC was founded. But that does not mean privatising

everything except its core activities. Some of the best things that the BBC does represent remarkable value for money. By supporting five orchestras, commissioning new composers and

broadcasting the Proms, for instance, it has done more to sustain classical music in Britain than any other institution. Yet all this costs less than one per cent of its budget. Nobody

designing a state broadcaster from scratch could justify subsiding hundreds of musicians. But such organic growth cannot just be pruned back without damaging a precious part of our culture.

It is true that the BBC has become detached from its audience, partly because it is run by a self-serving metropolitan elite. Brexit took the Beeb by surprise for the same reason that it

shocked the rest of the Establishment. The best approach to reforming the BBC, in order to make it more representative of the country it is supposed to serve, is to appoint a new

Director-General who grasps what has gone wrong with management and is ready to change it. This would not, at least initially, require controversial legislation which would inevitably become

a rallying point for backbench opposition to the Government. Who, though, is up to the job of dragging the BBC into the post-Brexit era? There is a case for a high-profile internal

appointment, but of the two most obvious names, Andrew Neil damaged his reputation by taunting the Prime Minister and Jeremy Paxman has no experience of running anything. Of the external

candidates, one stands out: William Shawcross (pictured). As a distinguished journalist, he has the experience and integrity to protect and even raise the standards of the BBC’s news and

comment. As a former chairman of the Charity Commission, he understands the tact required to steer a public body through a political minefield. Unlike most of the “great and good”, Shawcross

has the confidence of the Prime Minister. At 73, he is still dynamic enough to take on one more big job. The politics of the BBC have exasperated many previous administrations. After last

week’s botched reshuffle, which cost him an able and loyal Chancellor, Boris should beware of allowing his chief adviser to push him into the elephant trap of a pitched battle with the BBC.

This is a case for reform rather than revolution. Better a wily old bird than a bull in a china shop.