[tellyblues]

This fundamentally misunderstands the PSB bargain that allows the BBC to work - which is, in order to get funding for the 'PSB stuff', we also provide you with a range of popular programming that you can enjoy and make you feel like the BBC is a worthwhile investment. BBC One is as PSB as any other part of the broadcaster (indeed, I'd argue its PSB value is greater than something like the BBC News channel). What you've outlined as 'PSB stuff' is incredibly expensive and massively reliant on this cross-subsidy, which, if that PSB bargain broke down, I'm not sure if people would be happy to fork out for.

And the thing about this BBC should do PSB stuff only logic, is where do you draw the line? A few years ago, broadcasting women's football would arguably have been 'public service' stuff as it was very much a minority interest; now it's grown in popularity, does 'BBC PSB' have to drop any women's football programming because commercial rivals can do it? When the BBC commissioned Strictly, nobody thought it would be a success; from the minute it was, should the BBC have given the rights over to ITV? Although I guess 'BBC PSB' wouldn't commission anything vaguely fun in the first place, just the Today programme, some dry documentaries and Britain's third-best news channel (out of two).

"Popular" programming does help fund the more PSB type content, but it's also the case that the boring (and popular) PSB content provides the backbones for channels without which it's questionable if some "popular" shows would get made at all. Cuts are never going to be easy when you're taking things away from people but this isn't 20 years ago when money could be - and was - flung around.

The BBC also made the fatal mistake then thinking because everyone aged up to 34 was covered by various dedicated channels that viewers 35+ could have a free run at BBC1. The "changing viewing habits" argument was peddled but let it not be forgotten that children's programming was badly neglected years before it was taken off BBC1 as was TOTP and other young skewing shows. Finally, BBC3 closed because it became full of repeats and the budget wasn't there. The BBC's answer was to move stuff online. Why not have some of it on BBC1? Entirely doable, but in the time that BBC3 had been running, "general audience" shows established themselves on BBC1 and viewers would have kicked up hell. So nothing was done and then years down the line BBC3 returned to linear TV, soon becoming repeats again and an add-on channel for BBC1 viewers in many cases. Why is it OK to provide one audience with great service but treat another so poorly?

My point though is that BBC1 is there for everyone and if the BBC consolidated and moved content from other channels onto it and BBC2, a smaller amount of slots would have to be filled overall and money could be saved. The suggestion of a two-tier basic BBC and subscription service still stands as content no matter who it is aimed at has to be financially viable. Because the general perception is that BBC1 is for older viewers and anything that isn't on it must be crap - which can be true because less money is spent on it - I think that having a better, representative of all the ages flagship channel would convince more people to watch it more and make the BBC be seen as better value for money.

As for Strictly, people did have faith in it from the start. To say that the BBC took a risk with it is true but other shows had to be replaced and there was that older, receptive audience to begin with which helped it along.