The Spending Review: Making It Clear

I think it's important that the BBC doesn't just accept the government's line that all of these cuts are inevitable. You should also discuss other options, such as delaying cuts until the economy improves or increasing government revenue.

It seems that the government's current tactic is to pit individual public services against one another. It is crucial that the BBC questions this approach and looks at the bigger picture.

It's okay, a delegation from the BBC Management team (all one of him) has been to see that nice Mr Cameron to get clearance for these programmes. So, like the axed programme on BBC pension cuts, we can be absolutely assured that the BBC is utterly impartial.



Taxi!

Funny how Government policy is now the subject of BBC programming yet I do not recall such probing journalism being directed towards the previous incumbents especially with regards to their wholesale assault on our civil liberties and rights. The BBC seemed toothless then but now seems to have strangely rediscovered its bark now the Tories are at the helm.

The cat is now well and truely out of the bag. The BBC is nothing more than a moutpiece for the government of the day attempting to soft sell the current raft of policies under a veneer of editorial independence.



I should like to thank the director-general for exposing this to the great british public. The horrenous irony is we are paying for this injustice via our wallets in the form of the license fee.

There are two debates needed here. One is are the overall scale of cuts, their timing and consequent impact on people in the economy. The other is, given whatever the cuts are set at, what is the impact and effect on the services and activities provided by the public sector.



The trouble is that the government will try and win the arguement using the first debate. The opposition (and I include many LibDem voters) will try to win the arguement by focussing on the second debate. The result would be a conclusion that, 'Yes we do need sizable cuts, but not in schools (or developing the infrastructure or ....)' and 'we have to have these particular cuts because of the state of the economy'.



The problem is that righting the economy is a medium term, necessary and probably painful task. The results of the spending review, which is basically how the country is to be restructured, will have long term effects. Long term beyond the life of this government. The debate on the spending review needs to focus on that. Labour if they have any sense should focus on that aspect as that is their future. The debate about the size of the cuts was substantially lost at the last election.

Hmm. Good cop, bad cop. Needless, to say, the Murdoch Broadcast Empire who backed the Conservatives during the election, will not wish to taint themselves with these issues?

Two days in the life of Radio 4



Lets ignore the supine approach of Evan and Nick to the new government, or the fact that the BBC didn't cover the New York Times' revelations about Andy Coulson until it became impossible to ignore them (and then only in a minor way) and take a look at the schedule.



Tuesday, Quentin Letts, Daily Mail, argues that libraries are only worth it if they are traditional and don't reach out to disadvantaged people

Wednesday, Stephen Pollard, Spectator and Adam Smith Institute, argues that we should stop all public spending on the arts

Wednesday, Simon Heffer, Telegraph, argues that the abolition of the grammar schools was an unmitigated disaster.



This is smacking of desperation. The UK is a plural society and the BBC needs to reflect this.

To comment number 7.



I think the BBC has shown that it doesn't just pander to middle England, it has a fantastic Asian Radio station (being axed next year - Ed) a left-leaning popular arts & music station in 6Music (tried and failed to get it axed - Ed), excellent youth content like Blast (er, being axed -Ed) and hours upon hours of content for minority groups (where? - Ed).



If the BBC wasted hundreds of thousands of licence fee payer pounds on defending the integrity of a middle-class motoring programme or ran a classical music station at great expense per listener and paid lots of middle-england-friendly celebrities outrageous salaries while cutting staff pensions and paying peanuts to front line staff, you may have a point, but...er...it's lunchtime.



Taxi!

No mention whatsoever in the blog of the fact that Mark Thompson was called in by Cameron's strategy director to No10 to justify the season. Why was the BBC caving into the pressure from No10 and how can we trust the BBC's coverage if it shows itself to be craven to the ConDems in this way?

How many times have you blogged about BBC coverage of spending reviews in the past (or at least since blogging has been an option)?



And how many of Labour's spending reviews did the BBC cover in the same way as is being proposed here?



Let's not take a 30-year step backwards, for goodness' sake!

Now that the cat's out of the bag re Mr Thompson rushing to Downing Street to get his panegyrics on government cuts approved, can we have no more re his 'impartiality'? Mark Thompson is now an embarrassment as head of the BBC. He has serially debased the status and respect of the BBC over his Gaza DEC ban, and his invite to Nick Griffen. Now this latest bit of 'partial treatment'!

Andy Parsnip wrote: If the BBC wasted hundreds of thousands of licence fee payer pounds on defending the integrity of a middle-class motoring programme...



Um, I'm sorry but are you honestly referring to 'Top Gear'? I quite agree that defending what little honour that prog has was a total waste of taxpayers money...but 'middle class'? As far as I'm concerned it's a fantasy fling for chav petrolheads with little sense and even less car insurance!

The BBC should not at any price get in to bed with the Government to try to protect it licence fee as the day that happens The BBC sell us all down the river



The licence fee is good value for money over a year when you compare it against SKY and Virgin



The fact that the price that major events and acts are asking is more and more for the rights to cover these events and The BBC do use more UK made programs for all tastes



It is Sky and Virgin that have helped push up the cost of the licence fee with must have at any price so the BBC as to have the money to try and get some of these events and acts



The BBC do's some times pay over the odds for some of them but that is life

Thanks to Laura the Editor for clarifying the coverage of the Coulson story. The point I made was that the BBC covered it when it became impossible to ignore. The New York Times story was posted on Wednesday. The Guardian covered it on its front page on Thursday. The BBC managed, by Friday, to get it including a good interview on PM ... which was being explained away on the News at Ten as being party political. Still, at least by Any Questions on Friday evening we had one Labour MP, one Conservative MP and columnists from papers as diverse as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph.

I for one welcome this move. The Government is in and the cuts are coming, and many aspects of the cuts will affect us all. Unless the coalition disintegrates the agenda is not WHETHER to cut spending, it is HOW to cut spending. Regardless of party/ideology politics, surely this is a debate worth having.



I am looking forward to the BBC Midlands Today piece and I hope it moves the issue forward.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi



I'll keep this as short as possible.

Residents of Carter Lane West, South Normanton, Alfreton Derbyshire put in for compensation claims for disruption during the upgrade of the junction 28 island, noise as they worked through the night with big spot lights, dust and traffic disruption.

Some went with Carricks of Cardiff and were paid £2000 in early 2009. Some 2 miles away were paid £500. Our claim with local firm Morgan & Co, Belper, Derbys

went through and we were offered £2000 which we signed to accept. This week the Highways Agency have written to us to say we are not entitled to anything. Yet the neighbours were!

We can appeal at our cost.

Is this the governments spending review, treating people unfairly and with discrimination?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Please discuss the possibility of reducing the deficit by cutting tax reliefs: we could reduce the deficit by more than £10bn with relatively small cuts in high paid baby boomers massive non-state pensions. The Government gives away over £150bn each year in tax reliefs - many of them not even listed in its statistics. Yet the BBC NEVER QUESTIONS the possibility of cutting the deficit by cutting these reliefs!

International development budget up by £11.6bn, to meet the UN aid commitment. Yet this money could been used back home to stop reduces of services here. We have sent money overseas for internatioanl development for years with out any return on it. we even seen it be blow up in wars other troubles around the world. This budget should be lower and rised.