I really don't know how to parse that last sentence. What is the logic (or lack thereof) there? I don't keep up with what the BBC gets done to it by the UK government.
No real logic. All politics. The BBC is publicly funded and an enormous success, which is an embarrassment to those singing from the free market hymn sheet. But also, it's obviously a direct competitor to other media companies in the UK, who are very politically powerful (Murdoch, for example).
Same goes for our national health service, which is currently being gutted for the same reasons.
The Government have made the BBC cover the cost of free TV licenses, which means their budget for actual content is now £750m smaller. And there has been the suggestion that the BBC be banned from making entertainment programmes like The Voice, which would ensure the company is less popular with the public and less likely to garner sympathy in future.
Popular in this context means programmes created for pure entertainment, i.e. not news / current affairs / documentary / educational / etc. It doesn't mean that the BBC wouldn't be able to produce programmes that draw in an audience.
The BBC is the only widely-consumed source of serious political journalism in the UK that is not controlled by a plutocrat. Naturally, the Conservatives want to destroy it.
Not that the last Labour government were very keen on it!
Basically it's a principle argument around the role of government companies. Should government companies compete directly with local private companies in non-essential sectors? There are already lots of british companies producing popular entertainment shows, why should they have to compete against the government that is also supposed to support them. How would you feel if your taxes went to finance your direct competitor?
Furthermore it creates a potential conflict of interest. Do you pass a law that benefits 'your' company over private companies? What about passing a law levels the playing field in a sector but will take profits away from the government?
I know this is the standard argument against state participation in the economy, but in the particular case of the BBC, i have never heard this argument seriously presented.
