The Royal Prerogative ?

Yesterdays FT carries an article in which an all out fight is promised in response to David Camerons attempt to cap the licence fee.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f66227ac-4300-11de-b793-00144feabdc0.html

Nomad had imagined that 'the trust' was originally set up to represent the interests of the average viewer and ensure that 'the corporation' provided value for money. Clearly this is not the case and instead the trust sees itself as the guardian of 'the corporation' against outside attack. It must therefore extract the maximum possible funding from the taxpayer. Is 'the trust' also funded from the licence fee one wonders?

Sir Michael Lyons appears to share a delusion, common to other employees of 'the corporation', that they are part of a great and noble calling which is beholden to no man. Perhaps he should try reading Bagehot to understand how the constitution works (I include a link below). The Privy Council exists to advise the Queen and comprises for the most part government ministers. I dont know when a monarch last ignored the advice of the Privy Council but it seems fairly certain that the present monarch has never done so. Therefore if a future goverment decides to replace Sir Michael, make no mistake that he will be replaced.

Obviously this is shaping up as a rather interesting knivefight. Camerons move may is unlikely to get anywhere in the short term; but Nomad thinks it should be read as a statement of intent that a future Conservative goverment will be less sympathetic to 'the corporation'. Bear in mind that the present goverment could remain in power for up to a year and could impose some real damage in the meantime. The White Paper will be an interesting read. Hopefully the significance of Camerons proposal is that he will not consider himself bound by what the White Paper says.

Interesting times lie ahead for licence fee rufuseniks.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/English-Constitution-Walter-Bagehot/dp/1602062552