Days of the BBC licence fee are numbered but paying it from general taxation is scandalous - Sir Philip Davies

Paying for it out of general taxation would make the BBC even more of a political football, and come with even greater suspicions of political bias.

If a Party promised to spend more on the BBC in the run up to an election, how on earth would the BBC ever be able to counter charges of political bias? It would put them in an impossible position.

More importantly, it would be disastrous for the government of the day - and for the BBC - for the government to be taking money earmarked for the Police, the armed forces and the NHS away from those public services in order to give to the BBC. Politically that would be a non-starter and so the money for the BBC would inevitably dry up as I don’t see any government prioritise spending on them.

Indeed the licence fee has been debilitating for the BBC. When I was growing up and there were only three, and then four channels with the arrival of Channel 4, if you wanted to watch the best films, the best comedy, the best drama and the best sport you would go the BBC. It was the hallmark of quality.

Nowadays if you want the best films, drama and comedy you would go to Sky and Netflix, and if you want the best sport you would go to Sky Sports. How the mighty have fallen.

When Rupert Murdoch entered the broadcasting fray with BSkyB, the BBC had every advantage under the sun, but the licence fee held it back, and the income and buying power of these much newer entrants now dwarfs that of the BBC.

There is no doubt in my mind that had Rupert Murdoch taken over the BBC in the 1980s, he would have set about getting the licence fee scrapped straight away and the BBC would have become the biggest and most dominant broadcaster across the globe.

The licence fee might have mollycoddled the BBC - and unfortunately those that have run it over many years have tended to be subsidy junkies rather than entrepreneurs - but it has also ensured that it has never been able to fulfil its potential.

Paying for it through general taxation as the government are proposing would simply continue that mistake in a slightly different guise.

The only sensible way to fund the BBC is through a subscription model, and I am certain that it would give the BBC a much bigger global income as it builds up its revenues from around the world, whilst at the same time removing the toxicity from it of people being forced to pay for it whether they want to or not.

The BBC constantly tells us that the licence fee represents excellent value for money. If they really believe that, then why have they anything to fear from a subscription model? Presumably - if they are right - people will be queuing around the block to pay it in order to retain access to it. Maybe their real fear is that it isn’t great value for money and people will vote with their feet to not bother buying it.

I am pretty sure if the government forced - through the criminal law - people to have a Sky subscription or a Netflix subscription, there would (rightly) be a huge outcry. Why is compelling people to pay for access to the BBC any more acceptable? Even the most ardent supporters of the BBC must know it isn’t, and that forcing people to pay for the BBC through a licence fee or through general taxation is unjustifiable in this day and age.

I am pleased that Lisa Nandy seems to have concluded that the licence fee is out of date. I hope she will not rearrange the deckchairs on the titanic by paying for the BBC through general taxation, but will give people a genuine choice through a subscription model which will be celebrated by the public and will ultimately be good for the BBC too.