Yes - I think "radio" is a big one. Other providers do drama, and game shows (although there certainly may be qualitative differences), but there isn't an equivalent of Radio 3, or of the classic forms of radio comedy and drama... maybe effortful podcast curation...

Well! I don't think I have a point, exactly - and radio is definitely a thing that is coming up a lot, and definitely feels (a) unlike anything notionally operating in the same space and (b) like something that could not be replicated, and if dismantled could not be rebuilt.

Famous Drive!

I guess my question - which is probably unanswerable! - is "could another entity provide that kind of quality if the BBC did not, or is the constitution and staffing of the BBC uniquely optimised to generate content of that quality, and without it we'd be on non-stop Unicorn Academy."

Sure -I mean, cf the NHS. It would be very bad if it went away, but it is not in great shape in the form it is in.

The BBC I think is less sympathetic overall because a) it did not set mum's broken leg last Christmas and b) it is supposed to be independent in a way the NHS realistically cannot be.

Sounds credible - so, the cost of a couple of Star Wars series.

I think one thing I am realising is that I spend a lot of time on BBC's news product, which is probably the thing it is most proud of, and also possibly the thing I am least able to make a case for as uniquely beneficial and uniquely enabled by an obligatory license fee.

Yes! That is a good one - the breadth of content (and also radio drama and comedy, which are somewhat but I think not wholly substitutable with podcasts) feels like a solid pitch for "even if you do not use this, it is a public good".

Huh - deradicalisation by acclimation? That's interesting...

Oh, that's interesting! Although I guess I am wondering if it is something that the BBC is uniquely suited to doing...

Yeah, that was one I was wondering about, but lack insight into. I do wonder how expensive that is, though...

Yeah, fair enough. (It's funny - when my conservative flatmate used to say that the BBC should be funded by voluntary subscriptions, I thought it was mere controversialism. And yet!)

(I feel like it would be a tough sell, though - "Your body has the calorific needs of a woman, because as a short man you are more like a woman than a tall man" does not feel like a campaign that we are as a nation are culturally ready to embrace universally.)

In his defence (sort of), the suggestion was that supermarkets etc should offer a version of meals that is 25% smaller and priced appropriately, for women _and short men_. Which is arguably even more offensive, but I guess less exclusively sexist?

Always.

I had a lot of fun with it!

In her defence, she's honest about her goals; I think that we already knew that this was the brief that she was given by the previous government when she was appointed.

It _does_ raise the question of whether the Labour government understood that view of her role when they extended her tenure.

The reviews will continue until mental health improves?