Interesting debate here between John Humphyrs and David Elstein on the decision to freeze the BBC TV tax for 5 years and a useful insight as to how the BBC like to tackle the subject of their own bloated funding. Elstein is clearly sympathetic to the BBC and thus Humphyrs is able to lead the interview without the irksome inconvenience of having someone point out that the UK cannot afford this annual £3bn indulgence. Note the title “BBC license fee freeze “wrong” – just in case you miss the message. Actually I agree it is wrong but not for the reason given by the BBC. It is wrong that the taxpayer contributes so much as one penny to this left wing burlesque. I’d sooner the billions went to our Armed Forces.
ON THE "UNIQUE FUNDING"
Bookmark the permalink.
I imagine this morning they will be picking up the empty champagne bottles at BBC Centre to see if they can get any money back on them.
David Elstein had been appointed by the Tories in opposition to review the BBC and its funding – and his report back in 2004 was the best description of how subscription for BBC services could work – plus he advocated lots and lots of cuts in the sprawling Beeb.
Unfortunately the Tories chickened out of adopting his recommendations. And of course the Labour Govt gave the BBC an easy ride in the last review of the Royal Charter.
Everything Elstein said in 2004 is even more relevant now – the technology for subscription is here with us. It is surely the way things should go when the next Charter review occurs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3518283.stm
I see the whining BBC has set up a “Have Your Say” page on the Coalition’s action – described by the main headline in the Guardian today as a “raid”. Gotta love it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/what_is_your_reaction_to_the_b.html
A freeze is exceptionally lenient. Why do we have to pay anything at all towards the manufacture of trash TV like Eastenders and Casualty?
It’s a step in the right direction though. The BBC won’t last forever and in the future this could well be seen as one of the first steps in how the nation got rid of it and consigned the 1930s model of broadcasting to history.
I understand why the BBC might have an item on Today about the freezing of the licence fee: it is close to home. However, a “freeze” is barely a hardship: any normal outfit in the real world would be breathing a sigh of relief that its income is guaranteed at present levels for the next 4+ years.
On another point, since the “cuts” (there are no aggregate cuts in nominal terms BTW but you’ll hear little of this on the BBC) are to be revealed in all their glory at 12:30 this afternoon, why is 20 minutes of precious Today peak listening time devoted to Robinson and Flanders analysing the political and economic effect of cuts of which we – and presumably they – don’t know the details? We’ll know the facts soon enough and then the BBC, on the basis of reality rather than speculation, can get down to the real business of demonising the present government rather than mentioning that the necessity of the cuts is the fault of the last government. This is just another example of news in the future (eg “the prime minister will announce . .”, “Arctic ice will disappear . .”) which is not news. It’s either recycling a press release from a favourite pressure group or outright speculation which are broadcast as “news” to serve the BBC agenda on the particular issue dealt with.
‘why is 20 minutes of precious Today peak listening time devoted to Robinson and Flanders analysing the political and economic effect of cuts of which we – and presumably they – don’t know the details? ‘
Facts are so last year. What we are offered now are feelings. Or, in the case of Michael Crick near constantly, what he would like to think dressed up as a dark alley mutter form a ‘source’.
Maybe all such BBC ‘New… Views’ are now probably simply stirred up over at Ms. Flanders’ twitter coven, which I am guessing we pay for her to ‘operate’, but are not allowed to share in unless we know the secret handshake?
This is an official feed of the Stephanie Flanders blog on the BBC News websitehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/@bbcstephanomics’s account is private.
Only confirmed followers have access to @bbcstephanomics’s Tweets. You need to send a request before you can start following this account.
Mind you, so far… 2 followers.
2 followers
Stephanie Flounders
BBC-NUJ-Labour has its spending cut: crocodile tears from its political chum’ The Guardian’ which presumes that a publicly subsidised BBC-NUJ-Labour should be a permanent fixture of British society; and ‘The Guardian’ expects that all the advertising revenue which it receives from the BBC-NUJ-Labour (and therefore, from us) to be a permanent fixture too.
“Most newspapers ignore the BBC’s 16% funding cut”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/oct/20/national-newspapers-bbc
‘Yes, in splashing the story, The Guardian was the only paper to recognise the importance of the BBC’
Wild guess, but I do suspect that the minor circulation Graun and its employees don’t do irony, as such.
I guess the BBC won’t be recruiting much any more – so far fewer ads in the Guardian. Quelle shame.
Maybe that is why the Grauniad thought the story so significant- its front page lead this morning. Or maybe that their broadcasting mouthpiece is being cut down to size a bit.
“EU proposes new Europe-wide VAT”
No doubt this prospect brings a warm glow to BBC-EU:
– ‘end national sovereignty’!
– ‘EU funding of its supporter, BBC-EU’!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11578302
Yes, Dame Nikki Campbell interviewed some ex BBC twat who naturally claimed that it was all a Murdoch conspiracy to do in the BBC and went on an anti Tory rant (plenty of approving BBC grunts in the background)
Dear Dame Nikki, give it up, your days of excess are over.
I do tend to crank an eyebrow when the word ‘former’ gets applied to a ‘guest’ ‘expert’.
The headline is of course one that would be interesting to get Helen Boaden’s objective editorial and David Jordan’s editorial guided thoughts upon.
It’s… wrong, is it? Like a few posters on blogs who seem to be expressing undying love for the BBC, that seems to be conflating a bubblesque ‘we’ with in BeebGraunworld with the rest of the country, somewhat.
‘I’d sooner the billions went to our Armed Forces.’
Well yes. Though we could deploy Aunty’s edit suite shock troops such that any military setbacks can actually be reversed into victories (like HM’s entry/exit… to ‘enhance the narrative’) in post production. Comical Ali ‘tweaks’ as things ‘evolve’ can be explained away as being clearly highlighted by a change in timestamp.
That should keep ’em in skinny lattes and pensions until the bad guys roll up Hampstead Heath. Though I am not sure waving a diversity advisor at most of our potential foes will work as well as it does when offering ‘expert analysis’ from the comfy armchairs they are more used to.
On the BBC ‘Democracy Live’ Website (I’m watching from Europe) below the live stream, the following can be read:
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is unveiling the scale of public sector spending cuts in the UK as part of the government’s drive to tackle the country’s deficit.
Notice IS ie NOW
Alan Johnson, Mr Osborne’s shadow counterpart, will be first to respond to the chancellor’s statement. Treasury committee chair Andrew Tyrie is expected to follow.
Notice WILL ie Future
But while the Chancellor is still on his feet, the following is already in place:
“Labour says the “reckless” cuts are being carried out for ideological rather than economic reasons and warns that the government’s plans risk tipping the country back into recession.”
The BBC comment concerning the Labour reaction was in place before the Statement is even fully delivered. and BEFORE Johnson’s hopeless response.
It also failed to note the the Coalition was content and happy that the deficit issue was being addressed.
“Labour says the “reckless” cuts are being carried out for ideological rather than economic reasons and warns that the government’s plans risk tipping the country back into recession.”
Ed Mili and just now Angela Eagle have said exactly the same, clearly the agreed soundbite .
Every single Labourite has been saying “ideological” since May 12th. This is nothing new. I don’t expect any of the astute BBC political commenters to ask them when they’re going to learn a new song. Nor do I expect any of the impartial and non-ideological BBC political analysts to ask how all the cuts are strictly ideological when neither schools nor the NHS are getting killed. The final question I don’t expect to hear asked of anyone from Labour by a highly-paid BBC political editor or correspondent is, wasn’t Labour going to do some cutting if they stayed in power?
Generously I decided to give 3 minutes of my time to the BBC today.
BBC World’s rolling news had a halfwit reporter outside Westminster interviewing people for opinions about the likely impact of the scale back in government spending.
The captions reveal the first interviewee only as `Kitty Ussher, Demos’, and Ussher spouts away without the viewer being supplied the material background information that she was a Labour MP for 5 years until the general election in May.
Balanced, impartial reporting of events in full context ?
(For some reason the BBC’s hard-nosed reporter didn’t sneer at her or press her about her expenses from her time as an MP either)
you do realise that’s 3 minutes of your life that you’ll never get back??
Ah, Kitty Ussher.
Not the Kitty Usher, who on 17 June 2009, after controversial details of MP’s expenses had been released in the Press resigned, citing a desire to “prevent embarrassment to the government” after allegations that she changed the designation of her “main” home for CGT purposes to reduce her tax bill.
In her resignation letter Ussher said that she had done nothing wrong and that her actions were “in line with HM Revenue and Customs guidance and based on the advice of a reputable firm of accountants who in turn were recommended to me by the House of Commons fees office”. She also denied any abuse of the allowances system of the House of Commons.
At the same time Ussher announced that she would not contest the next election, citing the difficulties in reconciling her parental responsibilities with the working hours of Parliament, stating that this decision had preceded the expenses controversy.
Commenting on her resignation, the BBC described her as a “rising star” who had risen quickly through the ranks, despite only being elected in 2005.
An investigation by Sir Thomas Legge into MPs’ claims found that Ussher had breached the £11,000 limit for her new kitchen and ordered her to repay £1,271.65. Her appeal against the ruling was rejected.
Deep joy!
The hideous nexus of flatulence and platitudes that is the Gordian,the BBC and the quangos/unions/chuggers has a bat up its Naughtie!
Expect plenty programmes from the parasitic classes telling us about how the Beebs…er…”independence” will be compromised by not being fed smoothies from a lotus petal as of old under good ole` Tony.
Can`t wait for ther cheridee appeals that are no doubt getting commissioned up on the heath…Annie Lennox is gargling and Richard Curtis will be blowing us up in his promos very soon. Can`t wait-sack them all-for Evan is not the only fruit surely!
“It is wrong that the taxpayer contributes so much as one penny to this left wing burlesque. I’d sooner the billions went to our Armed Forces.”
Not exactly on topic: but that reminded me of the disgraceful way our troops are treated. Over the past few days I have seen an advert on the telly from a charity asking for £3 per month. This one however is not from the usual money grabbing lefties to feed their own egos, this is for St Dunstans who tell us the story of a soldier who lost his legs and was almost blinded in an explosion in Afghanistan.
Why for goodness sake should this soldier rely on charity? What kind of country treats wounded soldiers in this manner? The first duty of any government is the defence of the country and this should also include making sure that wounded servicemen are properly treated.
If we get rid of the British hating lefty comedians on the BBC , the money could be used for a good cause instead of subsidising ScotMs entertainment.
It’s always been that way JHT. The RBL and the RAF Benevolent fund for example have always been at the fore of supporting ex servicemen and their families.
Thanks for that Martin – not being an ex-serviceman I didn’t know that. Do these charities get any funding from government, like the RSPCA etc?
‘Telegraph’:
“BBC cuts: watch out for the Unions”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/neilmidgley/100008211/bbc-cuts-watch-out-for-the-unions/
“The BBC has good reasons to celebrate”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8077486/The-BBC-has-good-reasons-to-celebrate.html
Totally agree with the need for drastic cuts, but cutting the police and military were two liberal nonsenses that any true conservative would have fought with every bone in his body. Cameron has gone full native might as well call it what it is a liberal government.
The BBC must be laughing all the way, only a freeze, a stupid own goal let off of the worst kind.
The annual police bill for the whole of the UK is 5 billion, the bBC is 3 billion.
Why couldn’t we just cut off the BBC funding altogether and maintain proper law and order?
Let the BBC move into the commercial world of advertising and subscription to maintain its finances.
Better still privatise it and use the money to help fund the budget shortfall, better an aircraft carrier with planes than more from the bBC’s “talent”.
A howling miserable failure, now was THE moment to change the bBC forever, instead the liberal government (Tories) are house trained into being fully in their thrall. I am really angry at the lost opportunity.
Oh and can we please consign “We’re all in this together” back to its High School Musical junkyard, it must be one of the stupidest ‘defences’ I have ever heard. Absurd.