posted 17th November 2025
Some things you have to pay for, whether you use them or not; some things you can pay for or not, depending on whether you use them.
So (if you’re a taxpayer) you have to pay for the NHS, even if you’re never sick; for the police force, even if you are never the victim of crime; for the state education system, even if you don’t have children, or you educate your children privately. You pay for all these services through your taxes. This means that these services are already paid for, and are free at the point of delivery; no one is going to ask you for your credit card when you are wheeled into an operating theatre, or you report a burglary, or you drop your kids off at school.
What about the lighter things of life: the drama, music and sport which we all like to watch and listen to? Nobody is making you pay for Netflix, or Apple Music, or Sky Sports, unless you want to access their content. You want the content, you pay for it; if you don’t want it, you don’t pay. Or what about keeping up with the news? You can buy a physical newspaper or stump up to access content behind a paywall, but if you prefer to remain ignorant of what is happening in the world, you won’t be charged.
There is one exception. The British Broadcasting Corporation, universally known as the BBC. Everyone who watches any live TV on any platform (in other words, almost everyone) has to pay an annual licence fee. The licence fee is a hypothecated tax. This means that the money raised can only be spent on one thing; in this case, the BBC. The NHS, state schools and the police are paid for out of general taxation, and how much money they each get is decided by the government. So if the government wants to cut funding for hospitals, schools or the police, either to reduce taxes or to spend more money somewhere else, there is nothing those institutions can do about it. The BBC, however, has a guaranteed income.
Another difference between the BBC and other institutions funded by taxation is that they have complete independence. While the government can tell hospitals they should prioritise cancer care over heart surgery, or instruct schools to teach hanging adverbial clauses in Year 6, or cut policing in one area and expand it in another, they can’t tell the BBC what to broadcast or how to broadcast it. The only control they have is the requirement that the BBC must be politically impartial.
Some people think this is wrong, that the BBC should be privatised. This would mean the BBC would be no different from any other broadcaster, funded not by a universal tax but by subscription, just like Netflix, Apple Music and Sky Sports. If the BBC produced content people liked, they would subscribe, and this would generate enough income for the BBC to continue broadcasting; if they didn’t, the BBC would close down.
Are they right?
For privatising the BBC
It is simply unfair that we should all have to pay for something that we don’t all use. We should have the choice to access the content we want, and we should take responsibility for paying for it.
One of the basic rules of economics is that monopolies are bad for consumers. If you have no choice, suppliers can get away with bad service. The BBC has an effective monopoly of public broadcasting, so they do not need to try. Automatic funding encourages complacency. If the BBC had to compete with other broadcasters, it would raise its game.
The idea of a public broadcasting service is very undemocratic. The BBC has enormous influence, but its leaders are unaccountable, unlike elected leaders. It is easy for the BBC to be captured by people with their own political agenda.
The whole idea of impartiality is a myth. The choices you make when telling a story will always involve taking one side or another. The Daily Mail may be biased, but at least it is honest about it; the BBC uses its status to conceal its bias.
It made sense to fund the BBC out of taxation sixty years ago, when it ran two out of the three TV channels and all the radio stations. In today’s world, with multiple media outlets, it should have to compete for funding like everyone else. Numbers of people accessing the BBC have dropped dramatically in recent years, particularly amongst younger people, undermining the case for public funding.
Against privatising the BBC
The BBC is not perfect and has made mistakes, but the range, depth and integrity of its news coverage is respected the world over. It is a superb resource for learning what is happening in the world and why, without promoting any agenda. All of this can only be achieved with proper funding. If it has to depend on subscriptions, it will end up catering to the lowest common denominator, only screening shows that ar cheap and / or popular; endless repeats of Antiques Roadshow and Bake-Off, but no more investigative journalists exposing corruption or revelatory reports from the frontlines of wars.
In our world of fake news, polarisation and aggressive social media, we need a news organisation which is dedicated to impartiality more than ever. Media outlets in America used to be obliged by law to present news in a fair and unbiased way. This law was repealed in 1987, and the result is that Americans now get their news from intensely partisan outlets. Trump supporters follow Fox News; liberals tune in to MSNBC. Neither side ever gets to see the world from the other side’s perspective. This has played a huge role in dividing Americans into two irreconcilable tribes, who are at times close to civil war. We don’t want Britain to end up like America. We need one trusted source of news, with guaranteed funding.
What do all the attacks on the BBC tell us? That it’s getting something right. The fact that every government believes the BBC is biased against it shows that it’s doing its job of holding the powerful to account. The fact that supporters of Israel believe it is anti-Israeli, while supporters of Palestine believe it is anti-Palestinian, shows that it is reporting on the Middle East with accuracy and fairness.
Privately owned media outlets can be used by rich people to promote their own interests. Since Twitter became X, it has started guiding users towards posts supporting Elon Musk’s far right views; newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch are the most critical of the BBC, not on principle, but because it is a commercial rival. The fact that the BBC is owned by no one means it is owned by everyone.
The BBC is up there with the royal family, Paddington Bear and James Bond as a global brand, known to people worldwide as something distinctively and admirably British. Americans trust the BBC more than any of their own news organisations, ranking it only below the weather forecast for reliability. This gives Britain a great deal of soft power. To turn it into just another streaming company would see us losing a huge amount of prestige and respect around the world.
Motion that goes with this topic
This house would privatise the BBC
