Daniel Bell was wrong, as it turns out. He said in the post-industrial society (to paraphrase) that the application of theoretical knowledge would be the way public policy was decided, rather than unseemly struggles over power and money.
When James Purnell became Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, we welcomed it as a good example of political power being handed to someone who has a fair amount of expertise in his ministerial brief. Without wanting to exaggerate the revolutionary nature of this appointment, it seemed like we had a minister who knew the theory, and was going to apply it.
We thought, and we really believed, Purnell was going to instigate a wide-ranging debate on the future of broadcasting and, as definitively as possible, produce a policy settlement that would last a generation.
Instead, Purnell is yanked out after less than a year in the job, and told to go and replace police suspect Peter Hain at the Department of Work & Pensions. What a shame. And what an indictment of a Prime Minister that he is using this reshuffle to manage headlines rather than produce the best government.
Friday 25 January 2008
Friday 18 January 2008
license fee reform
Apparently James Purnell will tell the BBC that from 2013, a portion of the television license fee will be given to other broadcasters with a public service remit. More info here.
This is a good idea if it actually leads to an improvement in the public service content of other broadcasters. We're not going to pay for ITV to keep making Tonight with Trevor McDonald, because they are doing it already.
What this debate really needs to lead to is the abolition of the license fee. If this regressive tax made sense before (a big if), because it was money to pay for a specific service from a specific institution, then it will not make any sense in the future.
There is no Health license fee, nor an Education license fee. Let's start seeing the state's cultural interventions as a public service, not only in terms of its institutional home. This does not mean the institution will not exist (the NHS exists without that separate health tax), but actually strengthens its argument as a provider of a valuable service.
RB
This is a good idea if it actually leads to an improvement in the public service content of other broadcasters. We're not going to pay for ITV to keep making Tonight with Trevor McDonald, because they are doing it already.
What this debate really needs to lead to is the abolition of the license fee. If this regressive tax made sense before (a big if), because it was money to pay for a specific service from a specific institution, then it will not make any sense in the future.
There is no Health license fee, nor an Education license fee. Let's start seeing the state's cultural interventions as a public service, not only in terms of its institutional home. This does not mean the institution will not exist (the NHS exists without that separate health tax), but actually strengthens its argument as a provider of a valuable service.
RB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
