The BBC is finally being punished!

[longfingernails]

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?

willow - I have a frend who works as a freelancer for the BBC and the stories she tells of waste, bureacracy, downright gross inefficiency and worse are just stomach churning.

No doubt many of the back room production staff are low paid but its among the rather better paid senior management that the problems lay.

I do agree with you there scary. I guess the BBC is sharing the pain.

I just don't want it to share it to the extent that it dies - some of it cannot and will not be provided by the private sector

'They are a public sector organisation as we pay for them, and should therefore at least restrain pay' is what I actually wrote Witless.

Every other public sector employee has been and will be undergoing either redundancy or pay freezes or pension changes - please explain to me why the BBC should be exempt?

'Are you suggesting that workers in the public sector should be paid less than those in the private sector for the same job? In which case, 'you pay peanuts you get monkeys'. There is no point having a public service if you won't support it.' Workers in the public sector are paid less in many cases and you still get high quality employees. Mercenaries get paid a small fortune and yet you still get people joining the Armed Forces because they believe in public service and they are at the bottom level grossly underpaid for what they do.

Many people don't support HM Forces who I would argue are a public service. May we then count on your support against the coming Defence cuts?

Nothing wrong with saying they are wasting money, but a lot wrong with saying they should be cut back because they don't agree with the OP's politics.

longfingernails, how much do you and your friends make? Let's line up ALL of those making more than say 50k and cut them all down to size. Not just those in the BBC.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I'm having a bus, btw.

'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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

'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.

"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.

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...

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.

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.