Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

The BBC is finally being punished!

179 replies

longfingernails · 19/10/2010 04:58

Apparently there is a great plan to shift the cost of free TV licenses from the taxpayer to the BBC - with no increase in the license fee to compensate!

That amounts to about a 20% cut in the BBC budget. I am over the moon at this news.

It's incredibly progressive too! It shifts the burden from poor taxpayers to overpaid BBC staff, who will probably have to take a 25% pay cut! I am sure the newsreader who revealed she was paid £92k will be distraught. I can't even begin to imagine how much luvvies like Robert Peston and Andrew Marr are paid.

Maybe the next time the BBC says that "public spending cuts take money out of the economy" on the news, it might like to reflect on why Tories are so cock-a-hoop tonight.

They are in the middle of a "Cuts watch" series of programmes, I understand. Funnily enough, they never seemed to get round to a "Deficit watch" or "Tax watch" series during the Labour years. Strange, really - I wonder why?

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 19/10/2010 13:12

Here is the link where the BBC explains it is having a "Spending Review season".

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2010/09/the-spending-review-making-it.shtml

For some reason, it never saw the need on any of the Labour Spending Reviews, when Gordon Brown as Chancellor increased taxes so astronomically, or destroyed private pensions, or sold our gold at the bottom of the market.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 19/10/2010 13:09

Matsikula It's not called Cuts Watch I don't think. It's something about the spending review.

It is advertised regularly on the TV. In the minute or so of that single ad, all the senior BBC editors talk about the "dangers", but never, curiously, the "necessity", the "impressive improvement in gilt yields since the Emergency budget", the "legacy of debt", the "structural deficit predates the financial crisis", etc.

I can't find a link on either the BBC website or Youtube, but it has been playing for the last few days.

OP posts:
TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 19/10/2010 13:06

smallwhitecat/longfingernails - citation needed.

smallwhitecat · 19/10/2010 13:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 19/10/2010 13:02

longfingernails - Without an analysis of the output of the BBC all you are doing is displaying YOUR prejudices. You notice the phrase 'taking money out of the economy' as you are looking for it.

It might well be the case that the phrase is actually mainly used by opposition spokespeople or in reporting their statements.

Matsikula · 19/10/2010 13:00

Longfingernails,is the BBC really running a Cutswatch series? I haven't noticed it, and I can't find much about it.

If it is, it's no surprise - all the government is talking about at the moment is cuts, of course that is reflected in political coverage.

Original poster
longfingernails · 19/10/2010 12:57

skidoodly When was the last time that a BBC journalist (other than possibly Andrew Neil) actually said that tax rises take money out of the economy?

Given their reticence to explain the consequences of tax, why are they so happy to say that public spending cuts take money out of the economy? They are, after all, meant to be unbiased...

OP posts:
spidookly · 19/10/2010 12:48

"I am genuinely mystified as to why BBC journalists believe spending cuts take money out of the econmoy, but tax rises don't."

What BBC journalist or journalists said this?

I've never heard anyone say that and I'm completely obsessed with financial reporting.

witlesssarah · 19/10/2010 12:47

'They are a public sector organisation as we pay for them, and should therefore at least restrain pay'

this is not the same as accepting cuts. If they need to accept cuts, its up to them to decide how to implement them and there is no reason that it should be through restraining pay.

scaryteacher · 19/10/2010 12:45

I'm not a 'eejit' tyvm. The premise of the argument is that the BBC is publicly funded, ergo, they should not be exempt from the funding cuts that the rest of the publicly funded bodies/employees are undergoing.

smallwhitecat · 19/10/2010 12:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 19/10/2010 12:38

longfingernails - There was no acknowledgment of the Deficit in public life in general during the Labour government. Maybe if the Tory party HAD made an issue of it rather than talking about 'sharing the benefits of growth' it might have become part of the public debate and then would have been covered.

The coming cuts are probably the biggest issue in the public consciousness at the moment. It would be odd for a national broadcaster not to cover it.

Their are many complaints of right wing bias from the BBC - Nick Robinson, the BBC's Political Editor is frequently accused of being right wing for instance.

witlesssarah · 19/10/2010 12:35

Eejit, I'm not saying forces cuts don't matter just saying they aren't the topic of this thread.

FWIW I think that people in the forces should be paid at least as well as people doing similar jobs in teh private sector (which is the principle I was arguing for) I understand that many mercenaries are paid better - I think this is wrong.

What's more, tomorrow's announcements could also lead to DH and I losing our jobs (which are scarce and often require moving). We don't work for the BBC but I don't see any need to bring our jobs into this argument, which is about the BBC

scaryteacher · 19/10/2010 12:31

Glad you think it's a red herring - go on to the Forces Sweethearts section and see how much of a red herring it is to some posters on MN.

If the govt have got to cut and they have, then they will start with the public sector as that is where they have the control as employers. The pay freeze on those in the public sector is effectively saying that 'we should do it on lower pay because its in the public interest'. I fail to see why the Beeb should be exempt from that premise.

witlesssarah · 19/10/2010 12:23

Scaryteacher, I do not think that the BBC should be exempt from cuts. I think that the attitude that public sector ought to be restrained simply because its public sector is wrong. If we really can't afford to do something (produce public television for instance) we might have to accept that we can't (though I don't believe this is the case) but to say that we should do it on lower pay because its in the public interest is foolish.

I won't rise to the defence cuts bait, as others have said, its a red herring

Original poster
longfingernails · 19/10/2010 12:21

onagar I would happily apply that filter to almost all public sector employees.

Private sector employees' salaries are determined, essentially, by their value to shareholders, who in turn make their decisions about remuneration on the basis of employees' value. You can choose not to use a private sector company. You can't choose not to pay tax, or, essentially, the licence fee.

The BBC is hopelessly left-wing. All sorts of BBC employees, from the Director-General on down have admitted it, at least as far as the past is concerned - but they don't mention what has changed in the ethos now.

No-one has yet explained why the BBC didn't run a Deficit Watch or Tax Watch series during the Labour years, but are now running a Cuts Watch series.

No-one has yet explained why the BBC say that left-wing-biased "public spending cuts take money out of the economy" instead of saying, for example, "leave more of your money to you to decide how to spend in the economy as you wish" or "decrease the tax burden on your children and grandchildren". Both of which would, of course, be biased towards right-wing views.

I wouldn't mind the BBC's bias if I weren't forced to pay for it. As it is, I am very glad it might be hit so hard.

OP posts:
scaryteacher · 19/10/2010 12:21

'it is one that is a lifestyle, that comes first, that commands 100%. Its not something which is done 9 - 5 and then skip off home. It is long periods of time away from the family, it is 18 hour days, it is dedication and passion for what they do. Its is not about pay (unless you are top-tier managers of course).'

As is HM Forces; 9-5? You jest. Don't get me started on moving every 2 years, deployments, being sent to sea at 3 hours notice on Christmas Eve, 20 hour days as standard, calls at 0300 because something is wrong with the boat, 4 years weekending, 2 years 6 weeking from abroad, losing leave year on year because operational requirements don't allow it to be taken.

'Its not right to compare the Armed Forces with the Media, because you can't.' Yes you can, as the BBC is paid for by the public as is the Armed Forces. We are talking the BBC specifically here, not the media in general.

willow · 19/10/2010 12:06

I'm having a bus, btw.

willow · 19/10/2010 12:05

So now we are comparing the worth of the armed forces with that of the BBC? FGS, talk about not comparing like with like. That's like saying, "What am I going to have for lunch - a boiled egg or a bus?" It just doesn't make sense - the two aren't comparable.

smallwhitecat · 19/10/2010 12:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 19/10/2010 12:03

With regards to the Armed Forces it's a variant on q3 that is probably their biggest issue.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 19/10/2010 12:02

There are really several different questions.

Does the BBC have a political bias?

What do we want the BBC to do?

Does the BBC spend money efficiently?

These are all interrelated but distinctly different issues.

Awitch · 19/10/2010 11:58

depressing thread written by someone who can't have lived in America. skidoodly is bang on.

StewieGriffinsMom · 19/10/2010 11:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OFFS2 · 19/10/2010 11:56

No Scaryteacher, I would never day "well he chose to join the RN". You are wrong about that. I don't expect your heart to bleed for me.

I have the utmost support for people in your position, and empathy. Yes a job in the BBC may not be about national security, it may not be a job that saves lives, but it is one that is a lifestyle, that comes first, that commands 100%. Its not something which is done 9 - 5 and then skip off home. It is long periods of time away from the family, it is 18 hour days, it is dedication and passion for what they do. Its is not about pay (unless you are top-tier managers of course).

Its not right to compare the Armed Forces with the Media, because you can't.

A lot of people are being dealt a shitty hand at the moment, in their own right. Just because I've moved hundreds of miles to protect our employment, because I accept there's no salary increases, pensions are cut, doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

So let me be cross FGS.