The government should think twice about attacking the BBC – post-Brexit Britain has never needed it more

No one is disputing the fact that the broadcasting corporation has its faults. But the licence fee is far from one of them

Nicky Morgan has come a long way since she was a Boris-sceptic backbench MP who pledged she would never serve in a Johnson cabinet. Today she is a frontbencher, elevated to the House of Lords, and is happily ensconced as culture secretary. So far from being anxious about Mr Johnson’s brand of politics, she now seems fanatically on board. She has even learned to speak the same bizarre language as the other Johnsonistas.

Hence her illogical but determined assault on the future of the BBC. To be fair, Lady Morgan, as we must now learn to call her, has a point when she says that the BBC needs to move with the times, and meet the competitive challenge posed by the likes of Netflix and other streaming, non-conventional “broadcasters” (not to mention the many other web-based diversions available to the public, young and old). The “Blockbusters” line might have been a little gratuitously offensive for such a still highly successful and adaptable organisation as the BBC. The BBC has, after all, weathered a century of unparalleled change already, from wireless radio to wireless web, and needs no reminding of its problems – but the point can be taken.

What cannot be countenanced is the notion that the unique way the BBC is funded is part of its problem, and that it is, therefore, acceptable to undermine its finances by making the licence fee easier to evade. In a strange reversal of logic, Lady Morgan said in her keynote speech: “If you have to criminalise non-payment of the licence fee in order for the BBC to remain relevant then that suggests something is wrong with the model. Criminal sanctions are for issues that are damaging to society.”

Criminal sanctions, it might be added, are available for a wide range of offences that do not pose a lethal threat to civilised life; and the BBC licence fee relies for its widespread acceptance on the possibility of prosecution for non-payment.

Besides, as is still too little acknowledged, the government – meaning the previous chancellor but two, George Osborne – has co-opted the BBC to be an arm of the welfare state, responsible for funding free television licences for the over-75s. It was always something of dodge by ministers, to escape blame for an unpopular cut, and a trap for the BBC. Now it has been sprung. The BBC should not be forced to undertake means tests for what is effectively a social security payment. It has caused much disgust, and the BBC has been left with the blame that properly lies with the government.

The BBC does have a tendency to self-congratulation, but it is reflected in the public esteem it still commands. It remains a genuinely value-for-money public service. The licence fee, even with the kind of increase now being canvassed, means the BBC still provides more information, entertainment and education than any other competitor. Most important of all, in its national world and local coverage of news and current affairs, it is unsurpassed and irreplaceable. Were it to be eroded in any way it would devalue our already denuded democracy still further.

After all, when our politicians wanted to know who had won the last general election, where did they turn at 10pm? To Sir John Curtice and Huw Edwards on BBC1, naturally. It is a symbolic point. A free society needs a free media and it also needs sources of information and reporting that are impeccable and can be relied upon.

Those politicians and activists tweeting and screaming that the BBC is part of various conspiracies – often conflicting – have to propose some alternative that is not the equivalent of a propaganda operation run by and for the benefit of the governing party. In the last few months, the BBC (and ITV News) have been accused of bias by Labour (“mainstream media”), the Conservatives (“Brexit Bashing Corporation”) the Liberal Democrats (for denying Jo Swinson a place in the main leaders debates), by the Scottish Nationalists (for pro-Unionist bias), by Remainers (for having Nigel Farage on too often), by Leavers (for not having Nigel Farage on enough), and by the apolitical (for too much politics).

The fact is that the BBC does have a culture and a bias – in favour of fact and truth, and its journalists are universally dedicated to bringing those to the public. This is something that even Andrew Neil, no one’s idea of a liberal or lefty, was obliged to point out in the general election when Mr Johnson was too frit to turn up to a studio to be questioned by him.

The BBC has it faults, as it has always had them. It has also long experienced coming under political pressure from governments and, indeed, opposition parties. Remember the war on the BBC waged by New Labour – the dodgy dossier on Iraq, the death of David Kelly and the resignation of the BBC chairman and director-general? Governments have always tried to beat up Auntie.

Today, however, new media channels do threaten its commercial base, and the BBC needs to up its game in areas such as subscription-based services and tapping new, supplementary, sources of funds.

Yet the BBC does things that no commercial operator can do to the same extent or standard – its web services, TV and radio channels ranging from localities to the World Service. It is special because of the unique way it is funded, with all the security that entails. It is a powerful global brand and a powerhouse creative industry of a kind that “Global Britain” will badly need in its post-Brexit survival. It is one of the UK’s very few global brands, a potent weapon of “soft power”. It is worth protecting, and fighting for.