It's time to democratise the BBC — the public should elect the Director General

The late, great Ken Dodd, aka The Sage of Knotty Ash, once congratulated Harold Wilson on creating the Monopolies Commission. It was a great success. But there was one logical flaw. Why only one? Why the monopoly? Could the Prime Minister not appoint a dozen or more, competing monopolies commissions? (Dodd was Wilson’s favourite comedian. He often quoted the remark with a chuckle.)

In a similar vein, Francois Mauriac, Resistance fighter, Nobel Prize winner and all purpose French intellectual, remarked, as the communist German Democratic Republic was falling apart, and there was talk of re-unification, “I love Germany so much that I am glad there are two of them.” (Margaret Thatcher shared his opinion. But that is another story.)

I was reminded of those remarks by the arrival this week of Tim Davie, the new Director General of that troubled state monopoly, the BBC. He has already moved to sort out the continuing anti-democratic mess most recently exemplified by the blazing row over the singing (or more accurately non-singing) of Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory at the last night of the Proms. But only a deeply entrenched, out of touch, politically correct management could have ok-ed such an embarrassing “woke” decision.

Let us hope these executives are now quaking in their shoes. But they show little sign of contrition. The statement from the BBC on its U-turn claimed defiantly that the ban was imposed “on artistic grounds” and implied that a magic solution — allowing singing — had suddenly been found. Stuff and nonsense. The ban was a foolish act of political correctness and the press statement was a foolish act of defiance.

So we now know Davie really does see himself as a reformer, and is aware that the Beeb is in trouble. But he is said to be a consensus maker and not a purger. Good luck with that then. If he is a serious reformer with his finger on the public pulse he should next announce that he is binning the provocative decision to remove the exemption from the increasingly inappropriate license fee currently enjoyed by our senior citizens (and yes, I am one).

A few very senior heads rolling would do no end of good, as would a serious culling of the endless army of middle rank apparatchiks. He could start by sacking the ones with silly job titles. Working assumption: silly job titles means silly jobs. The names change fast but in recent years have included: Controller of Knowledge, Outreach Director, Reward Director, Change Director, Solutions Architect, Thematic Research Manager, Head of Curation and Discovery, Change Management Lead and ah yes — Director of the Spoken Word.

But is the BBC Davie inherits really as out of touch, as I believe? According to a poll, conducted last week by JL Partners for the Daily Mail, 52 per cent of those questioned said the Beeb is too politically correct. Only 17 per cent said it is was not. And 30 per cent identified the BBC as left wing. Some 20 per cent said (surprisingly, perhaps) it is right wing. As for the license fee, 65 per cent said it should be scrapped. Only 26 per cent said it should be retained. And a massive 77 per cent said it should remain scrapped for the over 75s. Only 11 per cent said the over-75s should in future be forced to pay up.

Asked if it is racist to sing “Rule Britannia” and “Land of Hope and Glory”, 17 per cent said Yes, while 64 per cent said No. And finally, asked if they agree with Boris Johnson that the BBC should stop “cringing with embarrassment about our history”, 59 per cent agreed. (Presumably those who disagreed wanted the BBC to carry on cringing?)

In short, the BBC does have a serious problem, if not quite a crisis yet. (That will come soon enough as the Conservative government gears up for the next review.) The Beeb is, however, clearly regarded by much of the public as Radio Guardian and not Radio Britain. Yet you have to pay your license fee even if you are not one of nature’s Guardianistas.

So this is where I return to Messrs Dodd and Mauriac. Why have one single biassed monopoly BBC consuming £5 billion of our money each year? Those who love the BBC should surely be delighted to see several BBCs sharing that £5 billion. Radio Guardian would of course continue. We already have Times Radio — so what about Radio Daily Mail and even Radio Sun? All of them would be subsidised by the fee paid by listeners and viewers. After all, millions of compulsory fee payers read those publications.

If that is too radical, then perhaps the BBC should become a smaller subscription service. Perhaps it should sell advertising time. Shocking? Well every national paper sells advertising space. Nobody is upset about that.

But if the monopolistic, unreformed BBC insists on gobbling up £5 billion of public money a year, then here is a democratic compromise: put the jobs of Chairman and Director General up for direct election every five years. Then the institution might be more accommodating to the diverse opinions of diverse Britain — the diverse nation which the BBC claims to serve.