I try my best to like the BBC. I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate when I am on Any Questions. I listen intently to the Foreign Correspondents when they observe well and write elegantly, keeping us informed of moods and events around the globe. I am a fan of the World Service and the work it does to keep the candle of freedom alight in the darkest of places. Yet when I listen to the Today programme, watch the news or tune into Newsnight I am constantly put into a rage by  the institutionalised bias they display.

Conservative ministers were nearly always interviewed from the old fashioned  standpoint that bigger government was better. The typical interview was about alleged underfunding - why don't you spend more? Or it was about alleged inaction - why doesn't the government do this, regulate that, legislate against the other? There is a case for interviewing us in this way - our opponents are usually complaining that we do not take enough money away from people in tax, and do not take enough freedom away from businesses and individuals to do as they please.

Now Labour ministers are usually interviewed in exactly the same way. This means that the Opposition to them, based firmly on saying government should tax less, regulate less and legislate less, is largely ignored. We have just witnessed a ruinously expensive experiment, with a Labour government pushing up taxes by £5000 per family per year and going on a massive borrowing spree, without any marked improvement in public service to show for it. Still the BBC interviewers prefer stories about  underfunding or failures by the government to act.

How I long for the day that  BBC interviewers might get themselves briefed on just a few of the many examples of government waste and self defeating action, and challenge ministers on why they go on thinking that wasting more of our money is the answer, when it has patently failed  so far. In the BBC's world privatisation is wrong, private enterprise is corrupt or unsafe, and the public sector is the repository of BBC virtues.

Let's take the way they report the railways. There is collective BBC amnesia about the job cuts, the poor services, the failure to invest and the endless decline in use recorded under nationalisation under both parties in government. There is a willingness to blame privatisation for anything that is now wrong. There is no willingness to explore the possibility that Labour's bodged renationalisation of Railtrack was a hugely expensive mistake, and no understanding that it is the monopoly power inherent in both the nationalised railway and in Network Rail that causes most of the problems.

When some of us fought through the privatisation programme of the 1980s and early 1990s, we did so because we wanted British people to have better lives and to be better off. The success of the  mobile phone and internet revolution, which has given choices to the many that were reserved for the few, depended on opening our telephone monopoly up to competition and placing it in the private sector where it could raise all the money it needed to pay for the huge investment. The privatisation of energy made a big clean up possible as the privatised industry ditched coal fired stations and entered the dash for gas. That would not have happened under nationalised control. The new world is based on consumer choice and a yearning to be green. Nationalised monopolies thwarted both aims, by resisting new technology and being short of investment capital.

We now need wide ranging change in the way we offer free health and education services to people. The BBC prefers to help block reform by retailing all the old Union views against freedom and choice, just as they did in the case of energy and phones.

The BBC is no fairer when it comes to report great world issues. In its world the USA is the source of most evil. Let us take the green issue. Listen to the BBC and you would think the only cause of the problem was the American motorist. Curb America and apparently the problem is solved. Have they not read that China now burns three times as much high sulphur coal as the US to feed her factories.? Do they not understand that China and India's industrialisation will soon swamp the impact of the US motorist in the world pollution stakes?

At home they seem to think that making life difficult for the motorist will save the planet. Again, why haven't they done their homework? If there is no alternative to the car, the journey will still be made despite the congestion. That worsens the pollution problem. This is what has happened in most parts of the country. Put people onto buses and that too increases pollution as the average bus is old and dirty with too few passengers. Why do they remain fixated by the car, when the typical domestic boiler for heating and water is the bigger source of domestic pollution?

BBC journalism is backward looking on so many occasions. It's stuck in a 60s time warp, out of sympathy with the fast moving consumer driven global marketplace of this century. The journalists retail gossip generated by spin doctors instead of studying the issues. The so-called experts come predominantly from one set of viewpoints - government is good, big government is better, more rules are needed, and the free enterprise sectors in the US and UK are the main villains in the world. If only things were that simple, we could all go back to communism and rest easy at night. Too many in the BBC have not grasped the fact that the communist experiment in the east showed beyond all possible doubt that big government breeds pollution, tyranny, wars and rearmament, low incomes and hatred. .

The BBC has made a complete hash of reporting the EU question. They have been ever ready to express the establishment's views that membership of the full EU is inevitable and desirable, that pulling out is dangerous and extreme, and that there is no other possible choice than pulling out or going along with the full project. Anyone expressing critical views about EU policy is immediately characterised as an extremist, unless the British government has supported the criticisms. Wanting to keep a democracy in Britain is right wing, even though its vocal exponents include Wedgewood Benn, Kilroy Silk a former Labour MP and  the Labour MPs who belong to the EU Safeguards group. Again the BBC look backwards, remembering the origins of the project in the 1950s and 1960s and failing to see how world events have rendered the aim of European political Union redundant to our needs. Our peace is guaranteed by NATO and the US alliance, not by the EU. Our trade is protected by the World Trade Organisation, and is increasingly looking to Asia and America.

To some in the BBC every evil party and government in the world is right wing. Right wing encompasses President Bush, the National front, all Eurosceptics and most recently the pro Russian communist President of the Ukraine who did not wish to acknowledge defeat in the Ukrainian election! If you belong to the BBC and you do not like someone's politics then brand them right wing. In the BBC's lexicon communists are conservatives!

The BBC does not show a simple party political bias against Conservatives and in favour of Labour. Interviewers now do give some Labour ministers as hard a time  as they give Shadow Ministers.  If there is a UK party political bias it is in favour of Lib Dems. Time after time they are treated differently from Labour and Conservative politicians. They are not interrupted. They are treated with respect. They are rarely criticised for inconsistencies or changes of mind. They are allowed to have past experience which is relevant to the case in issue.

For example, a Lib Dem MP who used to be a Shell Executive was used as an expert to comment on the oil price rises in 2004. As an "expert" he was treated with kid gloves.  As a former PLC Chairman, Head of investment research at a major merchant bank, author  and a Business School Professor, I have never once been invited on to comment on something I know a bit about and treated as an expert. It just doesn't happen to Conservatives. I am usually invited on to talk about something I have never written about or researched, in pursuit of some BBC agenda based on a mistaken caricature of my views.

Or take the way the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman was allowed to get away with the assertion that the Lib Dems only have one higher tax policy for the next election - the 50% rate of income tax on higher incomes. No-one on the Today programme pointed out that a few weeks earlier the Lib Dems had been allowed substantial air time before the local elections for their abolish Council Tax policy. This entails a new tax called local Income Tax in addition to their regional Income Tax. Independent experts believe these two new income taxes will impose an additional tax burden on most families. Why no mention?

The good news for us freedom lovers is we can do without the BBC. We do not need them to get our message across. They are just part of the problem, another outdated obstacle to freedom. Technology and free enterprise have given us the means to get our message through without the BBC - so that is how we will have to do it. Technology is giving people choice - more and more will exercise it against the BBC. Their institutional bias will eventually bring down the Licence fee, the only regressive Poll Tax their journalists never complain about.