No, Nandy

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has ruled out funding the BBC from general taxation, and is looking at a “mixture of licence fee, commercial funding and some subscription services”, according to The Times. 

If she's genuinely seeking a new form of sustainable funding, this isn't the way to go about it. A reduced licence fee wouldn't reduce evasion; indeed, it might increase it, if loads of the good stuff went to subscription. You'd presumably have to pay a licence fee, before you'd become a subscriber. The licence fee remains a regressive tax.  And a licence fee would still be set by government, and, usually, the Chancellor of the Exchequer - no protection from a Reform UK led government. 

So far, Lisa has ruled out some sort of levy on global streamers to help protect UK public service broadcasters; and has remained fairly quiet on shifting the licence fee collection to council tax. 

It's probably wrong to be too high-minded about some subscription elements. Yes, it goes against universality principle, but in terms of 'principle' UK viewers are currently subjected to ads to watch a whole bunch of old licence-fee funded content on the various strands of UK TV.  The BBC has experimented with the Maestro series of groovy adult learning shows; and in the States, is presumably getting some market feedback from BBC Select. But if the posh stuff all goes to subscription, BBC1 and BBC2 will be distorted down-market, channels for Eastenders, cooking, game-shows and antiques, easily available elsewhere without subscription.