April 2026

Bringing Defence Home

Rewiring defence to power growth, sovereignty and security

Foreword

Alex Baker MP

Defence Select Committee

The threats facing the United Kingdom today are ever-evolving, and so too must our understanding of what it means to defend ourselves. National security is no longer determined solely by the size of our armed forces or the strength of our alliances. It is increasingly shaped by the resilience of our economy, the capability off our workforce and the robustness of the systems we depend upon every day.

Hostile actors and states don’t need to cross borders to cause damage. They can target our infrastructure, our supply chains and our digital networks. In doing so, they undermine the institutions that sustain daily life, from public services to local employers, and expose vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed through conventional military means alone.

This makes investment in defence not only a matter of security, but of shared prosperity and renewal. Modern defence policy must strengthen the nation from the ground up - creating opportunity, building resilience, and restoring confidence in communities that feel left behind. When defence spending supports the skills, industries and infrastructure that underpin everyday life, its value becomes clear not only in times of crisis but in the stability and pride it fosters across the country. By bringing defence home, Britain can build both a stronger economy and a stronger sense of collective purpose.

This report recognises that national resilience, sovereign capability and national defence are closely linked. Through supporting British workers, businesses and communities, we can enhance our ability to protect critical infrastructure, maintain continuity in times of crisis and operate with confidence in an increasingly uncertain world. At the same time, we can demonstrate to Britons how defence can also work for them in their day-to-day lives.

Security and prosperity are not at odds with each other. Britain cannot project strength abroad while hollowing itself out at home. We can build a country that is visibly, tangibly stronger because of how we choose to defend it.

Abstract geometric pattern with dark blue shapes forming interlocking curves and angles.

“We want to feel safe where we live, don’t we? We want to feel safe in our country.”

- Woman, Labour-Reform Switcher, Nuneaton

Executive Summary

America’s escalation with Iran has sent shockwaves through the global economy, driving up oil prices, increasing instability across the Middle East and forcing Britain to confront a world in which even our closest ally can trigger crises that hit households, public services and employers at home. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has returned large‑scale warfare to Europe, while a constant drumbeat of cyberattacks are hitting our hospitals, businesses and critical infrastructure. The confrontation between hostile states and Britain has already begun, and the disruptions we experience today are not isolated incidents but opening moves in a wider struggle.

Britain has always seen itself as a country that stands up when it matters. A nation that finds shared purpose under pressure and refuses to back down. From the historical significance of D‑Day and VE Day to the pop‑culture phenomenon of “Keep Calm and Carry On”, our national story is one of collective courage and institutions that hold when tested. While there is plenty of nostalgia to it, the memory speaks to what Britain is capable of when called upon, and what it must now find again in a world where our energy supplies, hospitals, councils, local employers and critical networks can be targeted or destabilised without a shot being fired.

Yet, the political conditions required to meet this moment are fragile. Defence and national security rank among the top concerns for only 10% of voters. The economy, immigration and the NHS dominate. People support increased spending because they see defence as a basic duty of government, but they do not instinctively connect it to the pressures they face in daily life. Put defence in a direct fight against spending “at home” (as voters understand defence to be abroad) and it will lose.

This creates a strategic vulnerability. As long as defence is seen to compete with the NHS, housing and energy bills, the public consent required to prepare Britain for the threats it faces will remain shallow. But, despite that hesitancy, the public is already beginning to recognise the symptoms of a changed world: three‑quarters of Britons say they are worried about cyberattacks on public services, and nearly half say they are more concerned about national security than they were a decade ago. People sense that something has shifted – that Britain feels less able to produce, maintain and defend the systems that keep it running – but they have not yet been given the story that connects that instinct to action on defence.

This report provides that story. Defence investment is a means of protecting the things people care about, not in conflict with them, and cyber is where that protection is most visible at home. Cyber resilience protects our economy and essential public services; sovereign capability protects our supply chains from shocks; investment in skills, technology and digital infrastructure strengthens both our armed forces and our jobs. Security and prosperity must be seen as one and the same - online and offline, abroad and at home. Defence policy built on that foundation can command the sustained public support that Britain's security now requires.

The policies we recommend set out a framework to make defence spending politically durable by strengthening the country's workforce and skills base, supporting local economies and employers, protecting essential the public from both physical and digital disruption and reinforcing Britain’s capacity to produce and secure its own defence capabilities. In short, it shows how to bring defence home so that every pound spent on security also visibly strengthens life in Britain, even as instability sends new shocks through the world.

The Playbook to Bring Defence Home

The policies we set out are not traditional within defence. They are policies that speak to the sovereign capability of the country - to skills, housing and local economies. And crucially, they are understood to matter in the present. People back investment when they can see it working for them. When spending visibly improves lives, creates opportunity and strengthens communities, it stops being a burden on the public finances and starts being understood as a contribution to them. Defence is no exception.

Creating Pathways: Defence First

For many young people, defence is invisible as a career path - despite it being one of Britain’s most significant industrial employers supporting over 460,000 jobs across the UK. Using the model of the new Armed Forces Foundation Year, the Ministry of Defence should establish a Defence First Scheme: a paid foundation year opening up routes into the defence sector. Targeting young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEETs), it prioritises lower-income candidates through contextual recruitment and a living wage stipend.

Fighting Back: Cyber Crime Resilience Fund

Cyber attacks on our hospitals, businesses and public services are a frontline that many people already experience - and the one area where defence has an opportunity to be visibly, tangibly at home. Yet most people and small businesses have no idea where to turn to when they are hit.

  • A new National Cybercrime and Fraud Hotline: victims call once, get logged nationally, and connected to local specialists. This would be branded by the MoD and supported by the Home Office.

  • Strengthen the existing Regional Cyber Resilience Centres across England and Wales, on secure multi-year funding, expanding support to individuals, small businesses and local institutions.

  • Trained cyber leads embedded in local policing teams, bringing protection to the places and people most at risk.

Restoring Communities: Repurposing Ministry of Defence Land

Surplus MoD land sits unused in communities across the country - a huge public asset with the potential to deliver homes, jobs and regeneration. To translate that opportunity into delivery, we propose two new mechanisms: dedicated MoD Land Development Corporations with planning and compulsory purchase powers, and a new class of National Development Management Policies - "Ministry Zones" - creating a statutory presumption in favour of development on former military sites, cutting through planning delays.

Backing British: Supporting SMEs with the Backing British Package 

Defence contracts too often flow to a small number of large primes, bypassing the small businesses that are the heart of the British economy. A new national Defence Bank would provide government-backed finance to help British SMEs scale and compete, supported by a new Behaviour Scorecard holding prime contractors accountable for how they treat smaller firms, and a simplified procurement portal so defence contracts are genuinely open to all.

Giving Back: Offsetting via the Sovereign Capability Regime 

When foreign companies win major Ministry contracts, Britain should see the economic returns. A new binding offset regime would require international suppliers winning contracts over £20 million to reinvest 50% of the contract's value back into the UK economy - supporting British businesses, creating skilled jobs and strengthening sovereign industrial capability.

Public Attitudes Methodology

This report is based on:

  • 2x national representative online polls.

    • GGF Insights conducted a poll of 2,070 British adults online between the 28th of November and the 1st of December 2025. Figures were weighted to be both nationally and politically representative of all Britons, based on age, gender, education level, region, vote in 2019, vote in 2024, and political attention.

    • GGF Insights conducted a poll of 2,000 British adults online between the 13th and 16th of February 2026. Figures were weighted to be both nationally and politically representative of all Britons, based on age, gender, education level, region, vote in 2019, vote in 2024, and political attention.

  • 2x focus groups conducted by The Good Growth Foundation on 20th November 2025.

    • 1x group with Labour-Left Switchers: 2024 Labour Party voters who say they will vote for either The Liberal Democrat Party or The Green Party at the next general election.

    • 1x group with Labour-Reform Switchers: 2024 Labour Party voters who say they will vote for Reform UK at the next general election.

Part 1

British Pride, Capability and Industry

A Nation That’s Lost Its Edge

1.1

“I think we’d struggle to beat Lichtenstein in a fight on our own now.”

 - Man, Labour-Left Switcher, New Forest East

When voters think about defence, they are rarely thinking about war. They are thinking about the country as a whole - our strength, our security and whether we still feel capable. People do not fear invasion or an imminent military conflict. They fear that we as a country are weaker than we used to be. Less industrially strong. Less economically secure. Less able to act with confidence in a world that feels increasingly unstable. In this way, defence becomes a core part of a larger question: whether Britain still has the resilience to stand on its own.

Embed Block
Add an embed URL or code. Learn more

Nearly half (46%) of the public say they are more worried about Britain’s defence and security than they were ten years ago.  It is a concern that cuts across political divides and adds to the pessimism felt by many about the standing of their country. It is generally perceived that only the political right cares about our military might and takes patriotic pride in our armed forces. But, repeatedly in our focus groups, we heard dismay that Britain has been diminished from all sides. One Labour-Left Switcher bluntly told us they think the country is “weak”, a Labour-Reform Switcher argued “the UK itself is in a mess.” Concern about the country’s defence is not limited to one political view and overall opinion is remarkably similar to how people imagine our economy: fragile.

“I don’t think [the military is] fit for purpose. It gets talked about, but I think if something happened and it was put to the test, I think we’d be sadly lacking.”

 - Man, Labour-Left Switcher, New Forest East

“I think the world is a completely changing landscape … especially with the current American administration. I don’t think we can rely on the States like we used to …  NATO is in a state of flux. I think we cannot underestimate the threat of Putin … I think we need to be ready for, you know, God forbid, the inevitable.”

- Woman, Labour-Left Switcher, Romford

The link between defence and the economy is not a quirk of the public consciousness; it can be understood as part of the broader concern that the country has lost the sovereign capability and institutional confidence that once made it a top player on the world stage. Voters doubt the UK’s ability to act decisively and defend itself from malign forces in all forms. But, when defence is put in a straight fight with visible pressures “at home”, it loses. And this will remain the case unless people can see how defence spending helps to fix what feels broken in their lives.

Nearly half (46%) of Britons believe the Government should increase spending on defence, compared to just 16% who say it should spend less. Yet only 10% of voters rank defence and national security among the top three most important issues facing the country - far behind the economy and cost-of-living (63%), immigration and asylum (52%) and health and the NHS (45%). People are worried enough to back higher spending, but not enough to put defence ahead of the pressures they feel every day.

It is not surprising that voters are much more focused on the cost-of-living crisis and public services than on defence. Struggling with bills, waiting lists and stretched local services, it is natural they see those as the first things that need attention. Yet, the issues are not discrete. The sense that Britain is failing - and that this failure is making us weaker - bleeds across from the economy to defence and back again.

When focus group participants spoke about national security, they often did so in the same breath as concerns about productivity, public services or the country’s ability to compete economically. For many, “security” is inseparable from whether the UK still had the means to produce, build and maintain the systems that keep it running in moments of crisis. Safety and security are not simply about the armed forces, but about whether Britain retains the institutional competence and productive strength required to withstand disruption, whether from foreign military aggression or a domestic cyberattack.

A Triple Lock on Political Appointments in Practice

A Triple Lock on Political Appointments: The current appointments system consists of the government effectively selecting the BBC chair and four national board members of a board of 14 members.

We recommend three safeguards, the triple lock, enshrined in the next Royal Charter, to the appointments system to maintain integrity, provide increased scrutiny of nominees and ensure the BBC is facing the most effective board-level scrutiny.

  • Staggered term limits of appointees. All five government-nominated positions serve a single, non-renewable five-year term. Start dates are staggered apart across the five positions, so no more than two or three natural vacancies arise in any single Parliament. BBC Board-appointed non-executives serve a maximum of two five-year terms. 

The OBR provides the most direct precedent for staggered term limits, with initial appointments of members to the governance committee and chair staggered and limited to serve a maximum of five-year terms.[1]

  • Every government-nominated appointment must undergo a pre-appointment hearing before the DCMS Select Committee before confirmation. The Committee may issue a formal recommendation following the hearing against the appointment, which the Secretary of State may override only by a written statement to Parliament. This mirrors standard practice for the Chair, who must appear before the committee for scrutiny.[2]

  • No government may make more than three government-nominated permanent appointments per Parliament, regardless of vacancies. Any mid-term resignations or vacancies arising unexpectedly will be filled with government nominees with term lengths until the end of the parliament. 

However, these nominees would be subject to not only the standard pre-appointment hearing, but the DCMS Select Committee would also have the specific power to veto nominees deemed unsuitable. 

The practical effect of our proposed reform is that no government can, through a combination of natural vacancies and mid-term reshuffles, achieve dominant influence over the five government-nominated positions within a single parliament. There is already precedent for this principle and the veto over nominees in the case of the OBR. The Treasury Select Committee holds the power to veto the OBR governance appointments.[3]

While in the current system ministers must select from a panel-approved shortlist, created by an independent appointments panel overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, ministers are in reality not bound to accept the panel's recommendations. The existing checks are thus largely procedural. 

These safeguards ensure that only the most qualified and suitable nominees are nominated to the board and that no one government can significantly tilt the political direction of the BBC board in one direction, reducing the risk of perceived politicisation. 

The BBC Royal Charter, which already governs board composition, sits above ordinary legislation and is currently under review should be used to incorporate the triple lock.

Other areas for further exploration include a strict cooling-off period, requiring any nominee put forward by the government not to have served in a political capacity for the government in the five years up to nomination, which should also be considered and warrants further research. Exploration of nominees publishing a full declaration of relevant financial interests and political donations should also be done. 

“I Don’t Know Where the Money Goes”

1.2

But trust is also about money. The licence fee is a robust investment in UK talent but almost three in five adults (58%) say it is poor value for money; only 25% say it is good value. Among Reform voters, dissatisfaction rises to 78%. And it is no wonder, when nearly half the public (47%) admit they are “not knowledgeable” about how the licence fee is spent. In the focus groups, people were hazy even on the basics. Some assumed they were paying for ITV and Channel 4 as well as the BBC. Others did not realise the fee funds radio, local news, the World Service, BBC Sounds, children’s apps and online journalism. “I don’t know where the money goes,” one woman (Labour-Left Switcher, Hilsea) said simply; when presented with the full package, she added “I didn’t know that it covered all that.”

The Household Licence

A key piece of the puzzle is how people pay. When the public is asked in the abstract which funding model they prefer, no single option has significant support. Advertising, government grants, subscriptions, a reformed licence fee and a mixed model all have backers but also substantial opposition. What cuts through in the focus groups is a desire for fairness, choice and modernity. Focus group participants asked why they should pay a flat fee to fund services they never touch. “It’s going to have to change,” one man (Labour-Reform Switcher, Coleshill South) said.

“I’m not having these channels just to be told that I need to pay for a license … when I’m already paying for my Sky.”

 - Man, Labour-Reform Switcher, Bolton South and Walkden

“I just wonder, if they was to do a referendum on [the licence fee], how many people would be in favour of it?”

- Man, Labour-Reform Switcher, Chester North and Neston

Our proposed Household Licence is designed to answer those concerns. Instead of relying on an outdated, television‑set based levy, it treats the BBC as what it has become: a universal digital service accessed on phones, tablets, laptops and smart TVs. The Household Licence keeps the fee at the same annual rate but collects it through a mandatory household portal account, with every UK household that uses any BBC digital service - from BBC News and BBC Weather to BBC Sounds and BBC Bitesize - registering a free verified Household Account. Those who also watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer upgrade to a Paid Household Licence at the current rate, with all existing concessions such as for older viewers or low‑income households preserved and administered through the same simple interface.

This reform goes to the heart of the “value for money” question. Today, evasion has reached a record 12.5%, costing £550 million a year, while 3.6 million households have declared that they do not need a TV licence.[4] At the same time, the BBC acknowledges that 94% of people use its services each month, yet fewer than 80% of households contribute to its funding.[5] That asymmetry corrodes trust: people feel they are paying for something others get for free, while those who do not pay can insist - largely unverifiably - that they never use the BBC. Under the Household Licence, access to BBC content at any level requires a valid account, transforming the licence from a passive, honour‑system obligation into an active, digitally gated access right. A free account user trying to access a paid service such as iPlayer would be prompted to upgrade, making the boundary between “free” and “paid” transparent.

The household portal itself makes the social contract more concrete. More people who benefit from the BBC would contribute to its upkeep, easing the burden on those who currently pay and strengthening the legitimacy of the settlement. Crucially, the Household Licence is not just a compliance tool; it is also a way to show people what they are getting. The Annual Letter to the Nation and the Public Service Broadcasting Impact Report would be distributed not only through the post but also directly to each household’s digital account. When a family logs in to manage their payments or register a new device, they would also see a clear, personalised breakdown of where their money goes - how their contribution supports local news in their region, pays for trusted children’s content, sustains the World Service or funds training for young creatives. In an age where people can see at a glance how much they spend on Netflix, Spotify or Sky, the BBC must meet the same standard of clarity.

The Letter to the Nation

Finally, if people are to feel they are getting a fair return, the BBC must demystify its finances and treat licence-fee payers as stakeholders in a shared civic asset rather than passive consumers of a product. An Annual Letter to the Nation would do this in everyday language, placing viewers as co-owners of an institution. Instead of expecting viewers to wade through dense corporate accounts, the BBC would send every household a clear breakdown of how each pound is spent: how much goes on local radio and regional reporting; how much funds children’s content; how much sustains the World Service; how much supports independent producers across the UK.

“I'll use Netflix, and we've got Paramount. We've got Sky Cinema … So you know, I do switch in between. I do use the standard channels as well … for like the evening dramas tend to be good … ones on BBC, Channel 4.”

- Woman, Labour-Reform Switcher, Bassetlaw

The Letter would be backed by a more technical Public Service Broadcasting Impact Report, laid before Parliament each year. That report would quantify the wider benefits: the 21,500 staff the BBC employs, the nearly £5 billion it injects into the creative economy annually, and the estimated £15-17 billion in economic value it underpins through commissions, supply chains and training.[6] It would show how BBC spending supports jobs in Salford, Cardiff, Glasgow and beyond, and how the World Service and BBC Media Action project the UK’s values overseas. The aim is to move the conversation from “What does it cost?” to “What does it generate?”

How the Household Licence Would Work

The Household Licence replaces the existing television licence fee as a modernised, digitally administered flat-fee obligation at the same annual rate, collected through a mandatory household portal account. The free Household Account is for those who use any BBC digital service, and a Paid Household Licence for those who watch live TV or use iPlayer.

This is not a departure from the BBC's current direction of travel - it is an acceleration and formalisation of it. Since 2017, iPlayer has required users to sign in with a BBC Account. Smart TVs and streaming devices already support account pairing.[7] The BBC is now actively developing ways to link its approximately 40 million online accounts to home addresses, with the explicit aim of identifying households that access BBC services without holding a valid licence.[8] The Household Licence consolidates these steps into a single, coherent framework.

The case for reform is clear. Evasion has reached a record 12.5% in 2024/25, costing over £550 million a year, while 3.6 million households have declared they do not need a licence. Combined losses exceed £1 billion annually.[9] Yet the BBC itself acknowledges that 94% of people use its services each month - fewer than 80% of households contribute to its funding.[10]

The Two Types of Account

Free Household Account: Every UK household that accesses any BBC digital service - including BBC News, BBC Sounds, BBC Weather and BBC Bitesize - must register a free verified Household Account. This is free, and always will be.

Paid Household Licence: Households that watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer upgrade to a Paid Household Licence at the current annual rate. All existing statutory concessions - including for older and low-income households - are preserved and administered through the same portal.

The Household Portal

Both tiers are managed through a single Household Portal: a one-stop shop replacing the fragmented landscape of the existing TV Licensing website, the BBC Account sign-in system and standalone concession application processes. Accounts are created here, payments managed, concessions applied and device access controlled.[11]

Devices are registered to the household account and verified through a combination of IP address matching, Wi-Fi network association and periodic re-verification. Devices used away from the household for an extended period will be prompted to reverify or lose access to BBC services.[12]

To ensure no households, especially elderly or vulnerable users, are excluded by the shift to digital, phone and postal channels for account creation, payment and concession applications will remain available in full, with agents able to create and manage accounts on behalf of those who need assistance.

Modern televisions, TV boxes and streaming devices already support internet connectivity and run the BBC iPlayer app, and would require sign-in to access. The Government should consider requiring, through Ofcom or primary legislation, that manufacturers and platform operators make BBC app sign-in mandatory on all new connected TVs and set-top boxes sold in the UK. For those using traditional broadcast equipment, current enforcement techniques would continue to apply but could be far more targeted due to the BBC’s enhanced data collection.

Revenue Generation

Access-gating BBC services through the Household Licence is projected to generate up to £202 million in additional annual revenue, based on our conservative modelling anchored to Netflix's 2023 crackdown on password sharing. With evasion at a record 12.5% and the BBC's statutory footing meaning non-payers cannot simply switch to an alternative, the true figure is likely higher. Full modelling is set out in the Appendix.

Policy Summary

1.3

  1. Reform political appointments so that the five government-nominated board appointments are placed on fixed, non-renewable five-year terms with staggered start dates so no single Parliament faces more than two or three natural vacancies.

  2. A Household Licence to replace the existing Licence Fee with a modernised, digitally administered flat-fee obligation at the same annual rate, collected through a mandatory household portal account.

  3. An annual letter to the nation designed to demystify the BBC’s financial operations for every household.

Pillar 2

A Visible BBC

Bringing it back into every home

A central task for the next phase of reform is to give the BBC a tangible, everyday presence in people’s lives again, bridging the perceived gap between a distant broadcaster and the public it serves. That means meeting people where they are - on their high streets, in their libraries, nurseries and town squares - and making participation in the BBC feel like part of local civic life.

Today, 43% of adults say they use the BBC less than they did ten years ago, compared to 17% who use it more. Among those who use it less, the top reason is a preference for content from other platforms (47%). Another 41% say content quality has declined; 29% complain of too much repetition, and 28% say BBC programming feels less personally relevant. A fifth mention social media as a substitute, rising to 28% among 18-24‑year‑olds.

When people explain what this looks like in everyday life, they describe a shift away from scheduled broadcast towards a patchwork of streaming services, push notifications and social feeds. “I pretty much watch everything on streaming services,” one woman (Labour-Left Switcher, Lewes) said. “Even sometimes, if I watch live TV, it would still be through the streaming service.” Others reeled off lists of subscriptions - Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Sky Cinema - and explained that BBC programmes now sit in the same category as any other on‑demand show. News, too, is increasingly something that arrives in ‘bite‑sized chunks’ via apps and short clips, not a destination in itself.

Yet, visibility is not just about platforms; it is also about place. When participants were asked whether they felt represented on screen, their answers were divided by where they lived. Those in cities like Liverpool and Bradford, where filming is visible, spoke of the pride that comes from seeing their streets in popular dramas - even when the stories are dark. One woman (Labour-Reform Switcher, Wirral South) spoke highly of the gritty drama ‘This City is Ours’ set in Liverpool. “It kind of opened my eyes… I want the truth of it.” Others worried about how “hard working class … stories of poverty” (Man, Labour-Reform Switcher, Stratford Welcombe) look to overseas audiences and preferred the aspirational worlds of Downton Abbey or Pride and Prejudice. But beyond these big centres, there was a recurring sense of being left out. “We’re just not really represented anywhere,” one woman in Hilsea (Labour-Left Switcher) said. “There’s just so many other cities… they’re much more represented, much more livelier cities … I don’t feel our city is represented at all.”

The BBC On Your High Street vision is an answer to that absence. It starts from a simple question: what would it mean for the BBC to be encountered not only on screens, but in the everyday civic spaces people use - libraries, high streets, town squares, nurseries? One strand focuses on libraries and early‑years settings. CBeebies already reaches more than half of under‑6‑year‑olds each week and is among the most trusted children’s brands in the UK. Parents who use BBC children’s content are the only audience group to give the Corporation a positive net score on quality over the last decade, with 41% saying it has improved. They also voice deep concern about what commercial algorithms serve their children and relief that the BBC offers a safe, ad‑free alternative.

“I personally don’t go on social media too much because, having teenagers, I don’t think it’s healthy for them.”

- Woman, Labour-Reform Switcher, Wirral South

BBC Library Hubs and CBeebies Library Corners

BBC Library Hubs would turn that trust into a tangible presence. Permanent BBC corners in public libraries, branded with CBeebies and CBBC characters, would host regular story‑time sessions, screenings, craft activities and digital literacy workshops. These spaces would make BBC content part of the everyday experience of raising a child: somewhere to go on a rainy afternoon, a free place to gather with other parents, a visible sign that the licence fee - or its successor - is buying something rooted in the community. BBC studios could also be established in major libraries, ranging from radio newsrooms to vodcast facilities – some of which can be shared with the local community. The Boston public service broadcaster GBH News, for instance, takes hyperlocal broadcasting to a new level, both in terms of public engagement and transparency, broadcasting regularly from Boston Public Library.[13]

Live in the Town Square

Beyond libraries, the BBC can reclaim its role as a convenor of national moments. People instinctively understand its power to bring the country together for elections, Royal events, World Cups and big football matches, charity appeals and landmark dramas. Our polling shows that while Netflix is now seen as more important than the BBC to day‑to‑day life among those who use both, the BBC still outpaces it in importance to British culture and our economy. A programme of ‘Town Square Moments’ - live screenings in partnership with councils and cultural venues - would bring that convening power down to the level of towns and small cities. Big‑screen broadcasts of football, premieres or national ceremonies in town squares could echo the communal Wimbledon screenings that have become a summer fixture, but extended beyond London and major festival sites.

Retail presence

Finally, retail partnerships would bring the BBC into shopping on the high street. Building on the existing BBC Shop, which already sells merchandise for brands like Doctor Who, the Corporation could work more closely with high‑street chains to create BBC‑branded sections or pop‑ups offering children’s books, educational kits, local‑heritage materials and interactive displays. In places where participants currently feel not represented, a BBC corner in the library and a BBC presence in the shopping centre would be physical reminders that the national broadcaster is investing in their high street, not just broadcasting from elsewhere.

[13] GBH Boston Public Library Studio, https://www.wgbh.org/foundation/boston-public-library-studio

Policy Summary

2.2

These policies together form the BBC on Your High Street package, to redefine the BBC’s role within the national fabric, establishing a tangible presence in the heart of local communities.

  1. BBC Library Hubs and CBeebies Library Corners to anchor the BBC in civic spaces, as well as innovations such as studio and podcast spaces.

  2. Live in the Town Square: Live screenings of major events such as national football and dramas to foster national togetherness.

  3. Retail Presence: Using pop-up shops and merchandise partnerships to fund content and increase community engagement.

Pillar 3

A Competitive BBC

The Case for Creatives

The erosion of trust and visibility is happening in a media market that looks nothing like the one in which the BBC was born. Asked whether various institutions have more or less influence on Britain’s culture and identity than ten years ago, 39% of adults say the BBC has less influence now and only 20% say it has more; the net score is -19. Among those who use both services, more people say Netflix is more important to their day‑to‑day life, though as they still rank the BBC higher for British culture and the economy. In other words, the BBC remains the custodian of national stories; it is losing, however, the battle for everyday attention.

“I think it’s always been a British institution.”

- Man, Labour-Reform Switcher, Coleshill South

“If the BBC aren’t relevant, no one’s gonna care … they have to make sure that they’re relevant now and then in the future. There’s no point having a state funded broadcaster if no one watches them.”

- Man, Labour-Left Switcher, Acocks Green

Audiences are explicit about why. They believe BBC content has become less distinctive, less relevant, and less convenient to access than what is on offer elsewhere. A plurality (42%) say BBC content is worse than it was ten years ago; only 20% say it is better. The only group to buck this trend are users of BBC children’s programming, who give a positive net score of +13. In discussions, people talk about being spoiled for choice across platforms and about discovering shows through social media buzz rather than broadcast schedules. Some still love BBC dramas and nature programmes; others explain that even when they watch BBC channels, they are doing so via streaming apps on smart TVs rather than through linear broadcast.

To compete in this landscape, the BBC has to think like both a public service and a global technology company. It already sits on world‑class assets: the filming techniques of the Natural History Unit, archive content that spans nearly a century, user data and streaming infrastructure built up through iPlayer and BBC Sounds. 

BBC Creative Enterprises

We propose the formation of BBC Creative Enterprises - a dedicated vehicle, modelled on university spin-outs, which gets first refusal on innovations and technologies developed within the BBC.  By attracting private capital to carry the financial risk, it allows the development and backing of new creative technologies without the BBC bearing the cost itself.

When a BBC innovation is selected for spin-out, the BBC contributes its intellectual property - the technology, the format, the research - to a newly formed company. The BBC receives a founding equity stake in the company before any outside investors arrive. BBC Creative Enterprises then raises private capital to fund and grow the business. Those private investors carry the financial risk. As the founding stakeholder, if the company succeeds, is sold or floats, the BBC receives a return proportional to that stake. The BBC never writes a cheque; its contribution is the IP it already owns.

This model is already well-established in the university sector and has allowed for university innovations to flourish. Oxford Science Enterprises (University of Oxford)[14] and Northern Gritstone (Universities of Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield)[15] were founded on exactly this principle, ensuring that world-class research coming out of the universities could be commercialised without the university bearing the risk or losing the upside. BBC Creative Enterprises would do the same for the BBC, treating its technological and creative innovations not as incidental byproducts of public service broadcasting, but as assets in their own right.

The BBC's existing innovations offer an immediate pipeline. BBC Creative Enterprises would invest in technologies (not programming or scripted content): its market-leading C2PA deepfake detector technology, specialist techniques developed within the Natural History Unit, and 'speech in noise' technology are all candidates for spin-out. In effect, BBC Creative Enterprises turns innovations that would otherwise sit dormant into a funding stream that flows directly back into the BBC's public service content - without putting a penny of licence fee money at risk.

Archive Innovation Fund

Furthermore, the BBC’s archive is a treasure‑trove of British cultural heritage, from early television drama and landmark documentaries to historic news footage and children’s programmes. Yet much of this material remains under‑used. A dedicated Archive Innovation Fund would unlock the creative use of this archive by supporting educators, artists and independent producers to reuse archival content in new ways - for learning, community storytelling and cultural experimentation.

The fund could build on initiatives such as Make Film History, which has already licensed hundreds of BBC archive titles to young UK filmmakers for educational and creative projects. By lowering barriers - for example, simplifying rights clearance and providing clearer routes to access - and actively promoting archival materials, the BBC can stimulate the creative economy, support digital literacy and ensure that past content continues to generate public value for new generations.

“I think the creative [sector] is like the engine … that drives the other things behind it … People come and use the hotel, they go to a train, eat the food … obviously they draw in a lot of money and stuff. But culturally, it’s quite nice as well.”

- Man, Labour-Left Switcher, Bradford West

“We’ve actually got a booming film industry, haven’t we?”

- Man, Labour-Reform Switcher, Coleshill South

Global BBC iPlayer

Alongside this, a unified Global BBC iPlayer would bring international distribution under one roof. Today, the BBC sells rights to its programmes in a patchwork of deals, often granting exclusivity to global platforms that then rebrand British hits as their own. Revenues from international subscribers and adverts would be ploughed back into the platform itself and the domestic services that sit behind it. Other UK public broadcasters could be invited to host their content on the platform, sharing infrastructure costs and strengthening Britain’s collective streaming presence.

​For audiences, this offers a clearly branded home for British storytelling that can stand toe‑to‑toe with Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon, while still feeling different. For the BBC, it creates a virtuous circle in which global commercial success pays directly for public‑service ambition at home.

National Live-Streaming Service for Arts and Culture

The third strand of competitiveness concerns culture. A national live‑streaming service for arts and culture, hosted on the new iPlayer and potentially on other third parties such as YouTube, could be a new platform that would act as a public‑service version of YouTube for British theatre, dance, music and community arts. It would bring live performances and recorded content from across the country under one banner, alongside behind‑the‑scenes documentaries and educational materials.

Such a service would not compete with the National Theatre’s or West End’s own commercial offerings; instead, it would amplify them, particularly during events like a proposed National Arts Week, when access to certain archives could be made free or low‑cost nationwide. For towns that currently feel culturally invisible, seeing their local theatre or festival alongside London’s flagships would be a powerful signal. For the BBC, this platform would also be a testbed for impact‑driven commissioning, where metrics go beyond views to include participation, debate and policy change.

Together, these platforms would champion the BBC’s role as a driver of economic growth, cultural capital and social cohesion, demonstrating that what is funded at home generates benefits far beyond the UK’s borders.

Policy Summary

3.2

  1. BBC Creative Enterprises: A dedicated investment vehicle to invest in BBC innovations (modelled on university spin-outs), allowing the development and backing of new creative technologies without the BBC bearing the cost itself. 

  2. Establish an Archive Innovation Fund to open up BBC archival content for creative and educational reuse, building on projects such as Make Film History and lowering rights‑clearance barriers so that historic material can fuel new stories, skills and enterprises.

  3. The Global BBC iPlayer as an additional commercial asset for selling overseas.

  4. A new national live-streaming service, functioning as a specialised public service version of YouTube for the UK arts and culture sector.

Section 4

A Cultural BBC

A New Settlement

Beneath the arguments about funding and platforms lies the question that animates all of this: what kind of cultural institution do people want the BBC to be? The polling and group discussions give three overlapping answers. People want it to be a route into creative work, not just a closed shop. They want it to protect their children and young people from the worst of the online world while still entertaining and educating them. And they want it to tell stories - at home and abroad - that both reflect and shape who we are.

On access to creative work, the numbers are stark. 53% of adults say it is difficult to get a job in film, TV, music or theatre. Among those, 51% point to “needing the right contacts or networks” as the main barrier; around a third mention the concentration of jobs outside their region and not knowing how to apply; roughly a quarter highlight low pay, instability and lack of affordable training. In focus groups, a university careers adviser from the Wirral spoke of media students who “cannot get into the industry” despite every effort and lamented that “it’s all who you know” (Woman, Labour-Reform Switcher, Wirral South).

The Creative Foundation Year

The BBC, as the anchor client of Britain’s creative industry, cannot solve this alone, but it can do more than it currently does. A Creative Foundation Year, jointly branded with DCMS, would create a single, visible route into the BBC and the wider sector. This would build on the already highly in-demand apprenticeship scheme,[16] ensuring it opens out to as many people as possible. Instead of a patchwork system involving internships, short courses and ad‑hoc schemes, young people - particularly those not in education, employment or training (NEETs) - would be able to apply for a one‑year, paid programme that combines practical training with on‑the‑job placements. A living‑wage stipend would remove the need for family subsidy. Partnerships with further‑education colleges, local training providers and community groups would ensure that access points exist in every region, not just in a few big hubs. Graduates could be placed directly into roles within BBC productions or independent companies, giving them a foothold in an industry that currently feels closed.

“It doesn’t matter …how intellectual you are, doesn’t matter how creative you are, if you haven’t really got some first hand experience or connection … It’s still very difficult to open them doors … I think the jobs themselves are very out of reach.”

- Man, Labour-Reform Switcher, Bolton South and Walkden

Within this, a dedicated journalism track would search for curiosity, persistence and talent. Trainees would learn the craft of reporting before being deployed to regional newsrooms and foreign bureaux. Over time, this would diversify the voices telling Britain’s stories and strengthen the BBC’s global reporting capacity.

Lift the Borrowing Cap for BBC Studios on Children’s Content

For children and teenagers, the stakes are different but just as high. Parents in the research described the online world as unhealthy for their teenagers and worried about social media’s impact on mental health, attention and misinformation. At the same time, their own children’s experience of the BBC was often positive. Users of children’s programming gave the BBC its best scores on value for money. Parents see CBeebies and CBBC as rare safe spaces in an ecosystem dominated by unpredictable algorithms and ads.

Lifting the borrowing cap for BBC Studios specifically to fund children’s content and educational tech would allow the Corporation to invest at the scale needed to compete with global platforms. BBC PocketSize, a proposed evolution of Bitesize into a full learning and wellbeing app for pre‑teens and teens, is one expression of that ambition. Short‑form videos, interactive quizzes and AI‑guided learning journeys could be delivered in the same mobile-first formats that keep young people glued to TikTok and Instagram - but with every piece of content vetted for quality, accuracy and developmental suitability. Rather than harvesting data to sell adverts, PocketSize would track progress to help parents and teachers understand strengths and gaps. A curated ‘BBC Shorts’ feed within the app would offer a safe alternative to social‑media scrolling, focusing on curiosity, creativity and digital literacy.

The Children’s Culture Card

The Children’s Culture Card complements this digital work by opening doors offline. Designed in partnership with cultural institutions and philanthropic organisations, the card would give every child in the UK a digital and physical passport to museums, galleries, live performances, libraries and high‑quality media content from birth. Cost and ignorance are currently major barriers; many families don’t know what is available locally, and tickets can be prohibitive. A universal card with clear entitlements would ensure that taking a child to a play, a concert or a museum is not a luxury but a normal part of growing up.

“I think everyone wants to see their local area. It makes you proud … I think the BBC do that quite well.”

- Woman, Labour-Reform Switcher, Wirral South

“Entertainment is really important, not just for UK citizens, but tourists … And I think when talking about like local council level, for me, like local museums, local performances like, that's part of my, what I enjoy in my culture, and it does bring money to the town.”

- Woman, Labour-Left Switcher, Croydon West

A National Soft Power Strategy

Finally, there is the question of the BBC’s role in how Britain appears to itself and the wider world. The World Service and BBC Media Action continue to provide trusted information in some of the world’s most difficult contexts, from health crises to conflicts. People who have encountered the BBC abroad speak of feeling proud to see their national broadcaster trusted far from home. Yet many others are simply unaware of this work. At the same time, there is unease about the stories exported in popular drama; participants worried that EastEnders‑style depictions of hardship might define British life in the eyes of other countries. These ambivalences can be turned into a purposeful strategy.

“Every other place in the world, you know, there’s still a presence of the BBC … So the importance of it goes beyond the small fee you pay for your licence I think.”

- Man, Labour-Left Switcher, Bradford West

A National Soft Power Strategy, developed jointly by the BBC, the FCDO and the Soft Power Council, would align content, festivals, screenings and digital campaigns with broader foreign‑policy goals. This could put the BBC World Service at its heart as a key catalyst for soft power across the globe. The UK Media Global Outreach Programme could take British films and series on tour abroad, host digital festivals and expand the humanitarian work of BBC Media Action. By being explicit about this work in the Annual Letter and impact report, the BBC could show domestic audiences that part of what they fund is a global asset that supports democracy, health and open societies.

A Metric for Impact Producing

The BBC’s role as an amplifier and catalyst - using powerful storytelling and innovative formats to create broader public impact - is often overlooked. Recent programmes such as Mr Bates vs the Post Office and Adolescence have demonstrated how carefully crafted drama and documentary can illuminate systemic injustice and shift public debate, echoing the impact of the BBC’s seminal 1966 drama Cathy Come Home.

Most issues today receive only “breadcrumbs” coverage in news - a few minutes on breakfast television or a short online clip. It is through long‑form drama and documentary that complex stories can truly unfold, gather power and connect emotionally with audiences. David Attenborough’s natural history documentaries, for example, combine authoritative storytelling with innovative film‑making techniques to ensure environmental issues hit home in a way that bulletins alone cannot.

The BBC should therefore adopt the principle of “impact producing”, widely used in the documentary world, as part of its production. That would mean that dramas and documentaries tackling consequential issues are routinely accompanied by potent supporting materials, from discussion guides and educational resources to civic prompts to action and partnerships with trusted civil society organisations. The Radio 4 Archers storyline about domestic abuse between Rob and Helen shows how such long‑form treatments can become nationwide talking points, deepening public understanding of how control operates within relationships. This would ensure that such content is accompanied with impactful materials.

Success could be measured by a Weighted Impact Score: a formal index that balances reach against verified audience actions, political or social impact and engagement in schools and community settings. Such a framework would allow the BBC to demonstrate, in a transparent and rigorous way, how its commissioned work shapes public life for the better - and would embed social impact intent into what gets made, rather than treating it as a by‑product.

[16] BBC, Schemes on Offer

Policy Summary

4.2

  1. A new Creative Foundation Year designed to recruit NEETs and other young people who are currently excluded from the creative industries.

  2. Removing the borrowing cap for BBC Studios to invest specifically in children’s content, ensuring the creation of new innovations to compete in social media. This could include BBC PocketSize, a new app for pre-teens and teens that would be a high-quality, safe alternative to commercial social media.

  3. A Children’s Cultural Card pilot, giving every child in the UK access to a wide range of cultural experiences from birth.

  4. Create a joined-up Soft Power Strategy with the Government and the Soft Power Council that puts the BBC World Service and other impactful content at its heart.

  5. Integrate impact tools into BBC content, including a Weighted Impact Score, so that selected dramas and documentaries are developed with accompanying resources to ensure their social impact in schools and other settings.

Our Full Policies

  • The Household Licence: Replaces the TV license with a digitally administered flat-fee obligation. All households using digital services (News, Weather, Bitesize) must register for a free account; those watching live TV or iPlayer upgrade to a Paid Licence. This creates a verified database to eliminate evasion.

  • Triple Lock on Appointments: To ensure independence, government-nominated board members will have fixed, staggered, non-renewable 5-year terms. Government will be prohibited from appointing more than three board members per parliament and any government nominees must have a pre-appointment hearing before the DCMS Select Committee who can recommend against the nomination. 

  • Letter to the Nation and annual report: An annual "Letter to the Nation" and annual report can break down exactly how revenue is spent (e.g., local news vs. drama) to rebuild the social contract.

  • BBC on the High Street initiative: Establishing permanent Library Hubs (including newsrooms and studios) and CBeebies Library Corners to anchor the BBC in civic spaces.

  • Town Square Moments: Live screenings of major national events, football, premieres and ceremonies in partnership with councils and cultural venues, which would bring the BBC's convening power down to the level of towns and smaller cities.

  • A retail presence on the high street:  Pop-up shops and merchandise partnerships with high-street chains would create BBC-branded sections offering children's books, educational kits and local heritage materials in places that currently feel left behind.

  • BBC Creative Enterprises: A dedicated investment vehicle modelled on university spin-out funds like Oxford Science Enterprises and Northern Gritstone that would get first refusal on BBC innovations, developing and backing new creative technologies to generate returns that fund public service content, without the BBC bearing the cost or risk itself.

  • An Archive Innovation Fund: To unlock the BBC archives and support educators and artists who reuse archival content in new ways.

  • A Global iPlayer: Consolidating all PSB content into a global competitor on the streaming stage, and platform a new live streaming service for events.

  • A national arts and culture livestreaming service on iPlayer: A public service alternative to commercial platforms for the UK's creative sector, giving world-class British theatre, dance and music an audience they currently struggle to reach - a public service alternative to commercial platforms for the UK's creative sector.

  • Creative Foundation Year: A partnership with the government to train thousands of young people, specifically targeting those not in education or employment (NEETs).

  • Lifting borrowing caps for children’s content: Lifting borrowing caps to create a safe, educational, and algorithm-free digital ecosystem for children to rival harmful social media.

  • A Children’s Cultural Card: To give every child in the UK access to a wide range of cultural experiences from birth, including museums, libraries, live performances, and high quality media content.

  • A Soft Power Strategy: The Corporation could build this in conjunction with government, putting the BBC World Service at its heart.

  • Integrating Impact Metrics into commissioning: Adopting the principle of ‘impact producing’ as a core commissioning strategy to ensure that dramas and documentaries that tackle impactful issues.

Afterword

Alison Cole

Director of The Cultural Policy Unit

The BBC is not simply a broadcaster - it is Britain’s sovereign cultural institution. It is a pillar of democratic life and shared national experience, with every licence‑fee payer a stakeholder in a collective civic asset. It pioneered the global model of public service broadcasting, founded on the Reithian mission to inform, educate and entertain, and remains a central part of British life despite intense competition from global commercial platforms.

The BBC is also the single largest creator and broadcaster of original arts and cultural content in the UK, commissioning thousands of hours of programming annually and sustaining creative ecosystems across the nations and regions. Internationally, through the BBC World Service, it is the UK’s most recognised cultural export, shaping global perceptions of Britain and its values, and reaching hundreds of millions of people worldwide. All of this means the BBC has a strong role in promoting “good growth” as we see it - tangible socio‑economic outcomes in every corner of the UK.

This unique national and global role is made possible by a distinctive method of funding: a universal fee, which is far more than just a conventional tax. Our policy proposals outline a transformative vision for the BBC, reframing the licence fee as a robust investment in UK talent and the future of our high streets.

The BBC should continue to be universally funded, with account holders actively reframed as stakeholders, rather than consumers – effectively investing and participating in Britain’s cultural and civic infrastructure, as well as consuming its output (including the talent pool it has developed that have gone on to move and entertain us on other platforms and media).

This should be the key means by which the Corporation can ensure its centrality to British life, while promoting trust and transparency. This is partly acknowledged in the BBC’s 2025 Strategic Report, which notes, the BBC “must reflect, represent and share stories from all parts of the UK and ensure our economic impact is felt across the nations and regions”. But it is much more than that: the BBC drives and champions British culture and heritage, generously nurtures and grows talent, in communities, nationally and internationally, and is central to our children’s wellbeing and development. We should celebrate it and support it as one of our country’s finest public interventions and give it the confidence and energy to grow.

Appendix

Revenue Generation (Household Licence)

Netflix's clampdown on password sharing in 2023 provides a valuable example of how access-gating the BBC may generate significant revenue for the organisation. 

In 2023, Netflix began to clamp down on account sharing between different households. Prior to enforcement, 15% of Netflix users in the US were borrowing someone else's account rather than paying for their own. By 2024, post-account-sharing crackdown, this had fallen to 10%, a one-third (33%) reduction in the non-paying cohort as a proportion of all Netflix users.[17] 

Indeed survey data of American consumers found that between 25-30% of 19,000 streamers not paying for accounts surveyed expected to eventually pay for their own account before implementation of the password sharing crackdown.[18]

In the UK, the password sharing crackdown resulted in a 10% increase in paying subscribers among UK Netflix users with the company posting record UK revenues following the password-sharing crackdown.[19]

Netflix enjoyed significant global subscriber growth, adding nearly 30 million net new subscribers globally in 2023, compared to 8.9 million in 2022.[20] Netflix CFO, Spencer Neumann, stated that “Most of our revenue growth this year [2023] is from growth in volume from new paid memberships and that’s largely driven by our paid sharing rollout.”[21] Paid sharing rollout is a direct reference to the password sharing crackdown. 

For this estimate, and in the absence of granular data on how many former account borrowers dropped off Netflix entirely versus converted into a paid subscriber, an assumed upper bound of a one-third (33%) reduction in the non-paying cohort is treated as conversion to paying status. In reality some non-payers will have disengaged rather than paid, meaning the true conversion rate is below 33%.

However, there are strong structural reasons to treat 33% as a conservative floor in the BBC context rather than a ceiling. Netflix is a discretionary commercial subscription with numerous direct substitutes. The BBC Household Licence is a statutory obligation for those who use paid BBC services, not a commercial choice. A household that consumes BBC content and refuses to pay following access gating faces loss of access to a public service used almost universally across the country.

The incentive to comply is therefore materially stronger than in the Netflix case. On this basis, applying the 33% conversion rate to the approximately 3.4 million evading households[22] derived from the NAO-audited evasion rate of 12.52% applied to the BBC's 23.8 million licences in force yields a central estimate of approximately 1.12 million additional paying households, generating approximately £202 million in additional annual revenue at the current licence fee rate of £180. This is treated as a deliberately conservative single-point estimate; the true figure is likely higher given the statutory context, but no empirical basis currently exists to quantify the  premium with precision.

[17] Leichtman Research Group, ‘10% of streaming video services are borrowed’, Pg 2, March 2024

[18] TheDesk.net , ‘Netflix password sharing crackdown’, October 2023’

[19] TheMediaLeader, ‘Netflix password-sharing crackdown a ‘success’, March 2024

[20] SkyNews, ‘Netflix subscribers surge after crackdown’, January 2024

[21] CNN, ‘Netflix adds nearly 6 million paid subscribers’, July 2023

[22] The 3.4 million evading households is a derived figure, Derived from two NAO-audited figures: 23.8 million licences in force and a 12.52% evasion rate (BBC Television Licence Fee Trust Statement 2024/25). Calculation: 23.8m ÷ 0.8748 = 27.2m licensable base; 27.2m × 12.52% = 3.4 million evading households.

With special thanks to…

Meet our Team

Nathan Lloyd

Ben McGowan

Dylan Turner

Jade Azim

Billie Coulson

Louisa Dollimore

Kai Hain