Staleness, spin-offs and radio funding slashed: Why I think the BBC TV licence has had its day

Just asking, because I don't - I've always found him perfectly competent at announcing which game we are about to watch, and putting a few probing questions to Ian Wright or Alan Shearer about who will challenge Manchester City this year, or what is going wrong at West Ham. And he does it for £264,000 year, a fifth of what the BBC pays for the supposedly indispensable talent that is Gary Lineker.

Yes, I know people are always going on about Lineker's salary, and as far as I'm concerned he does a pretty decent job of introducing football highlights. But doesn't the corporation's stubborn determination to pay him eight times the salary of the Prime Minister – even if he does have to supply his own specs ­– speak volumes of how out-of-touch Aunty Beeb has become?

The future of the licence fee is on the agenda once more, with the new Labour Government considering proposals to decriminalise non-payment, while Tory leadership hopeful James Cleverly has called for the licence fee to be abolished altogether.

The BBC has long argued that the 'unique way we are funded' allows it to perform a vital public service, producing programmes that would never be made if broadcasting was made by the private sector. And a generation ago, it was a pretty good point.

But here's another question: When was the last time the BBC came up with a brave, innovative programme that captured the public's imagination? I've just been scouring this week's TV listings, and I'm struggling to find anything that is remotely original, let alone worth watching. Celebrity this, reality that. EastEnders, which nobody has watched since Dirty Den left, repeats of The Fast Show, a chat show with Graham Norton. Then there's my personal favourite, decluttering with Stacey Solomon – which sounds like something Alan Partridge might have suggested to his boss, had Stacey Solomon been around then.