BBC NEWS CUTS

It's political posturing. Government wants the BBC to save money AND to stop the BBC holding the government to account, hence they axe their two main political shows. The only real losers? The viewers - the electorate . We know that Bumbling Boris hates being criticised and being held up to attention politically (but loves attention away from that.)

The BBC is one of the most generously funded PSBs in the world. How they prioritise spending their budget as a PSB is debatable right now, given the proposed cuts.

The BBC are the ones choosing what to cut though, and time and time again it’s always stuff that nobody else does, whilst ringfencing populist mainstream output that everyone does

It is really annoying to see political journalists, many who work for newspapers that have sought to undermine the BBC for years, complaining about the potential loss of Politics Live.

Where have they been for the past ten years of Government imposed budget cuts!?

I don't support the BBC cutting its political coverage, but nobody needs any more of Owen Jones and Brendan O'Neill sat around a table shouting at each other.

Maybe there is an element that threatening to deprive MPs of their opportunity to get on the box might focus some of their minds about the impact of real terms cuts to the BBC's funding?

In terms of scrutiny of the Government, how much of that does/can Politics Live actually do in this era of a Government that doesn't seem to like to put ministers up for interview?

Is that the only source, because that doesn’t say it’s being axed?

It just says there is no known timeline for bringing it back at this point

Makes more sense to keep it but simulcast it on the news channel, especially with Victoria Derbyshire being axed.

The BBC are choosing to take the axe in this way. Time and time again the drama budget is either ring fenced or even enlarged despite being about the most non essential and least necessary part of the BBC's programming (although does typically appeal to those who are middle aged and middle class with relatively globalist views, just like the vast majority of those in upper BBC management). It would be quite possible for the BBC to continue with all of it's news and current affairs programming if they weren't more bothered about maintaining the programming the bosses watch and further boosting diversity in roles that are regularly seen or heard by viewers, an area in which just about every minority is at least represented in line with the population and many are significantly over represented, in an attempt to not do anything about diversity in back office and behind the scenes management roles which remains overwhelmingly white and middle class.

The Salisbury Poisonings' huge ratings would disprove that drama isn't essential to the BBC.

Also these UK made dramas must be very beneficial to the UK economy and developing the industry.

Yes, I was wondering about this. The only source appears to be that piece in The Spectator, which in turn refers to the interview with Andrew Neil in the Radio Times. In that interview, the interviewer Anne McElvoy - and not Andrew Neil himself - says "BBC sources acknowledge that the future of Politics Live hangs in the balance at a time of cuts to programme budgets". And that's all there is.

Neil himself says "I don't know what happening. There's no clarity at the moment, so I'm just waiting for the BBC to make up its mind.", and the interview also says that when the interviewer asked Neil if he was being "sidelined", "he sidesteps the question".

So I don't see how you'd take from an aside in an interview in the Radio Times that it was confirmation Politics Live was being axed.

The London region although obviously based in London, is separate from the main BBC News as far as I know. They used to be in a separate building, by London I meant the main BBC News and all those people in the BBC HQ doing other "stuff" apart from the world service which likely won't be touched I believe the government funds partly in some way at least at the moment.

In regards to the possible end of Politics live and the Andrew Neil show, I think people are reading too much into it, the simple fact is that many people do not watch these shows, especially politics live which is on in the middle of the day. This is the future, things the BBC could do that others could not, because they were publicly funded, are coming to an end. They must behave more like a private company because that is the reality of where they will possibly, in some form end up many years down the line, but also because in the modern world viewing numbers and clickbait style content is supreme above all. They were always important, but not in a way like they are now. I am not suggesting that the content they produce is click bait, but if you look at the way things are written and titled, there have been changes over the last few years.

There is no reason why politicians etc can still be held to account without these shows, there is also no reason why they can't do it like Sky News does it and have it all in "one". i.e can they not just have Andrew Neil or somebody else at 11am on the BBC News channel? I still miss Andrew Neil on a Sunday morning and also This Week, but sadly I accept that shows like this are unlikely to be around for long in this modern world unless someone is willing to fund it. The government however must also be careful, because if there is such a void there are certain foreign broadcasters funded by certain foreign governments which operate channels in the UK will be happy to fill it I suspect and that would not be a good thing.