Andrew Marr is paid £600k to spout his pseudo-communist nonsense on the BBC

[longfingernails]

Sorry I've been away for so long, but we had a family illness... thankfully all is OK now.

Anyway, I was outraged to learn that Andrew Marr is paid such massive sums of our money to read out Guardian editorials on the BBC - and we are not able to do anything about it. A fair salary for his job would be more like £60k.

If he wants to earn more, he could go and work for a private broadcaster.

All BBC salaries should be disclosed, in full, as soon as possible. Then, all BBC salaries should be capped at a maximum of £100k.

I do hope no-one missed me too much .

Marr gets paid all that to compensate for his ears.

I think the public have cottoned on, which is why so many don't turn out to vote. The public says "what's the point? They're all the same", and now even the politicians say that "we are all in it together".

Eric Pickles was only a Marxist in his teenage years. He developed his current sound views after watching the intellectual foundations of the Left crumble.

The Left lost the big battle of ideas when it lost the Cold War. They have never really recovered since.

Tony Blair realised this, and invented New Labour. Thankfully, Ed Miliband has thrown New Labour away.

Very silly. Decisions like this will see the end of he BBC through popular resentment. The BBC is marvellous and management are being wanky about its future.

Spot on, claig. Journalists are as much part of that club to get their share of political gossip, juicy secrets, etc.

agree, muminlondon, all the talking heads and newspapers are part of the act. They are opinion formers that try to shape the opinions of the public. We have all heard about these "open secrets" all over Westminster, where the jounalists have known open truths for years, but never told the public. George Orwell was right, we are the proles and there is an Inner Party.

That's why Andrew Marr was so condescending about bloggers and sites like this where people post views anonymously. Can't remember where he said it, but it got picked up on Any Questions a few months ago. I like his reporting but I don't see why he or other journos should be the gate keepers to all knowledge.

spot on, muminlondon. If people read the blogs, then they may no longer believe Marr.

When I looked up Nick Robinson on the Conservative Guido's Blog, the Tories there were saying that Nick Robinson had won a Blogger of the Year Award, and they were laughing, saying that he was granted that by an Orwellian Labour outfit.

Lots of people don't like the comments sections in the online newspapers. But I think they are great. There you find what the public really think, not what the journalist wants you to think. Many of the public are very knowledgeable.

Blogger of the year? That does sound Orwellian if it's journalists congratulating themselves. Pop will eat itself (or even vox pop).

Exactly . It's to stop people looking for other blogs, why not just read the Blogger of the Year?

It's all amusing entertainment. That's why they call it "the Westminster circus" and the "parliamentary merry-go-round".

It can get a bit nasty (e.g. the Guardian) but usually it balances out. The best journalists actually engage in that debate rather than try to control it.

Yes, I agree. The best journalists are open to changing their ideas and accepting different thinking. You can tell which ones are the card-carriers. I think 'This Week' is a great programme. Andrew Neil gets a lot out of his guests and the theatrical aspect of it all becomes clearer.

It's true actually. I hated Michael Portillo as a politician but he sounds much more interesting since he stopped being an MP, even though I disagree with him.

However, I like John Harris best of all and I suppose he's not going to appeal to anyone who isn't convinced by his politics. I also like Paul Mason. Maybe it's the accent.

Yes, Portillo is now relaxed and is no longer acting a role like he did with his SAS speech. He is out of the thick of it and can now let us in on some truths. I personally don't like John Harris because I think he is an angry actor, playing a role, whereas Portillo has taken his acting cloak off. I don't mind watching John Harris because I think the more he talks the more he shows his insincerity, and the more the calm, humourous Portillo comes over as genuine. Yes, Paul Mason is good.

It's a shame there aren't more good quality political programmes on TV, because if nothing else, they are entertaining.

I don't like Ken Loach's role in the Assange case, and I haven't seen much of Ken Loach. But he was on Newsnight once, versus Michael Heseltine, and Loach absolutely destroyed Heseltine with clear, genuine logic and argumentation. I agreed with practically every word that Loach said and thought Heseltine was very poor. Loach should go on TV more often, I think.

I hadn't thought about John Harris like someone playing a role, but yes, he's the articulate, angry northerner , comprehensive educated who got to Oxford (or Cambridge) anyway. I like that because the dominant voice seems to be public school southerners or at best, grammar school boys done good. So maybe he does play on it a bit.

That's often where the BBC gets it right - when they get a commentator outside the usual political or professional pundits.

I always liked Prescott. He never went to Oxbridge, but everytime I saw him on Newsnight, against the Tory's 'two brain' Willetts, who did go to Oxford, Prescott always held his own and often came out on top. To me, it's a matter of who is genuine, who really believes in what they are saying, because they usually make a more convincing case.

That's why it is so important to have a real opposition who are genuine and really believe in what they are saying.

Claig. Another G and T waiter? cheers

complimentary, that is what the Tories used to say about him to denigrate him because of his class. He never had the privileged education some of them had, but in reality he was as sharp if not sharper than them. Apparently, he could also hit a mean croquet ball. But, so what, they just wanted to mock him. We both come from working class roots, and we know that the toffs, like Harriet Harman, are certainly no better than us.

Very true. Labour politicians managed to alienate so many of their natural supporters for so long because they sounded managerial and insincere. But that's also happened with the Lib Dems in a fraction of the time. The Tories have also been hiding behind select spokespeople deemed 'reasonable'. Some real stage managing going on. I was fascinated by how many times Phillip Hammond popped up to defend child benefit cuts etc. despite being the minister for - er, transport.

I think political commentators change stance when there's a change of government.

Until last May I would have pegged Nick Robinson as a Tory sympathiser because he was asking awkward questions of Labour politicians. Now he's asking them of Coalition politicians so the Coalition is allowing their bloggers to mock him.

Yes, you're right. The genuine ones are few and far between. The public can spot the phoneys. The more genuine, sincere people all of the parties get, the better they will do.

Cameron phoned the cricketer Darren Gough and asked him to stand as a candidate for Barnsley. Gough declined. But Gough is genuine, he is of the people, he is for real. I have heard him say how his parents and brothers and sisters and relatives are all Labour supporters and how he comes from a mining background. But he himself genuinely is a Tory in spite of that. He is not in it for the gravy train. If he was then if he was a Labour candidate he could probably be elected in Barnsley. It is a shame that a genuine person like him didn't stand this time, but maybe he will one day. the more people like him come forward to serve the country and the people, the better.

OP- I agree