In the very first speech of his re-election campaign earlier this year, the French president Emmanuel Macron made a pledge to ease the countrys cost of living crisis by scrapping Frances TV licence the contribution laudiovisuel public that residents pay as part of their habitation taxes.

It may have sounded like populist electioneering, but this week, the French Senate voted to bring his promise into law, and, after 89 years, the countrys public service broadcasting will now be funded by a share of VAT receipts, rather than by individual contributions of 138 (115) a year. The Senate believed the licence fee was obsolete in the digital era, and this move, which emanated from the far right of French politics, has, unsurprisingly, been greeted warmly in Britain by those who seek to withdraw public funding from the BBC.

Nigel Farage immediately tweeted that he wished our government would have the courage to do the same, and, in different political circumstances, it is easy to imagine that those who have ideological and commercial objections to the BBC, or who want Channel 4 privatised, being emboldened by events in France. It is fairly safe to assume that, once the political leadership of this country is established, this is a subject which will return to the agenda.

At a time when families everywhere are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet, this is an easy argument to make. In Britain, putting 159 a year back in peoples pockets makes political and economic sense. But thats because the narrative has been perverted down the years by the forces of conservatism to make us believe that the BBC is a luxury item, and what we are funding through the licence fee is essentially a spendthrift, left-leaning, overblown, woke organisation which, like Channel 4, shouldnt be protected by the state against market forces, and the global streaming giants. The licence fee model is completely outdated, said Nadine Dorries, our minister of culture.

But we must be aware of the perils of allowing the debate to be framed in such a way. I would argue that in a time of national stress and political upheaval, the role of public service broadcasting is even more important. It is right that the BBC should be held to account like any public body, and its financing should be the subject of constant review given the changing nature of the media landscape, but it shouldnt be a question of whether it provides value for money (inevitably a subjective matter), and the BBC cannot be treated as a commodity, weighed against a packet of fish fingers or a gallon of petrol.

Even in France, they havent cast their public broadcasters adrift; theyve had to find an alternative funding method. The importance in a democracy of independence of information was an argument employed in the Senate debate. And, for all that, it has to be said that Frances state broadcasters cant hold a bougie to the BBC for global reach and national cultural importance.

Nevertheless, these are now dangerous times for supporters of the BBC. When the instruments of state are increasingly degraded, and when trust in the body politic is crumbling, the role of independent media whose purpose is to serve the public not its shareholders cannot be underestimated. In times of privation, it is essential that then long-term health of the nation is not sacrificed to short-term financial gain.

See the original post here:

The BBC is not a luxury in a cost of living crisis, it's more essential than ever - iNews