The whole thing is setup to create a clear firewall between the BBC and government to preserve the BBC’s impartiality and prevent it becoming a mouthpiece for whoever’s in power (it’s a separate debate as to how successful that is).
Ministers are not the CEO of the BBC. Not even close. The BBC has an entirely separate board that should have no relationship to the current government in power (something that BoJo is desperately trying to erode).
The whole point of all this is to explicitly make sure the BBC isn't a government controlled corporation, regardless of how much the government wishes it was.
> It's also worth noting the UK govt' spent $5.1bn on the BBC last year, in contrast Sky operated on $5.2bn in revenue. There are clearly some huge inefficiencies at the BBC that can be remedied internally without government approval. Bemoaning $5.1bn as not being enough is garbage. I mean, ITV operates on $2.1bn in revenue. Cutting back the waste seems appropriate to me.
You clearly have no idea how huge the BBC’s legally mandated remit is. Comparing the BBC to Sky is like comparing TfL to Uber. Sure they’re both transport companies, but TfL is legally mandated to provide a good transport service to all, regardless of background or income, and treat their employees well. Uber can fuck their drivers, and refuse to provide services to the unprofitable.