The Newsroom

BBC NEWS CUTS

Cuts reactivated - P43 onwards

RA
radiolistener
Here we stand, with rumours that the BBC are to scrap Politics Live and The Andrew Neil Show.

What on Earth is going on inside the minds of BBC management?

Scrapping regional shows to make them more “newsy” with no double headed presentation which for some people, are apart of their lives and make them feel less lonely. Thousands of staff are going to loose their jobs.

Don’t get me wrong, I know the government isn’t exactly generous with its funding. But when a public service broadcaster cannot afford to run key services then is there a point in it anymore?

The BBC continues to run stuff that hardly rates and yet wants to scrap programmes that form a part in the countries political agenda. We will just be left with bloody Question Time and The Andrew Marr Show at this point. Don’t get me wrong, they are alright shows, but after all these years they get a bit boring.

Up pops Politics Live with a lovely new studio, graphics, music and format.

Up pops Andrew Neil with a show to hold politicians to account.

Down pops those shows because they can’t afford it. Ridiculous.

This post has no flow whatsoever and is just mostly me ranting but to think the BBC can’t afford to run these sort of things makes me question the point of a public broadcaster who can’t provide “unique” services.


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.)
LV
LondonViewer London London
Don’t get me wrong, I know the government isn’t exactly generous with its funding. But when a public service broadcaster cannot afford to run key services then is there a point in it anymore?

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.
AN
Andrew Founding member Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
Let's not forget why these cuts are happening, which is for the most part because the government refuses to fund universal free TV licenses for the over 75s, but still insists that the BBC provides them! So this is a massive cut to the BBC by stealth, for which the government wants to blame the BBC itself.

The BBC might just survive until the mid-2020s but if the Conservatives get into government again in 2024 I think that might be the end.

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
OM
Omnipresent London London
Let's not forget why these cuts are happening, which is for the most part because the government refuses to fund universal free TV licenses for the over 75s, but still insists that the BBC provides them! So this is a massive cut to the BBC by stealth, for which the government wants to blame the BBC itself.


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.
Jeffmister, Night Thoughts and BFGArmy gave kudos
SP
Steve in Pudsey Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
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?
Write that down in your copybook now.
AN
Andrew Founding member Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
I've found this story about Politics Live - https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/politics-live looks like the BBC won't commit to bringing it back as a daily programme after the summer recess.

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
BR
Brekkie Wales Wales Today
Makes more sense to keep it but simulcast it on the news channel, especially with Victoria Derbyshire being axed.
Stay Local. Stay Safe. Stay Alive.
AS
AlexS Central (East) Midlands Today
Here we stand, with rumours that the BBC are to scrap Politics Live and The Andrew Neil Show.

What on Earth is going on inside the minds of BBC management?

Scrapping regional shows to make them more “newsy” with no double headed presentation which for some people, are apart of their lives and make them feel less lonely. Thousands of staff are going to loose their jobs.

Don’t get me wrong, I know the government isn’t exactly generous with its funding. But when a public service broadcaster cannot afford to run key services then is there a point in it anymore?

The BBC continues to run stuff that hardly rates and yet wants to scrap programmes that form a part in the countries political agenda. We will just be left with bloody Question Time and The Andrew Marr Show at this point. Don’t get me wrong, they are alright shows, but after all these years they get a bit boring.

Up pops Politics Live with a lovely new studio, graphics, music and format.

Up pops Andrew Neil with a show to hold politicians to account.

Down pops those shows because they can’t afford it. Ridiculous.

This post has no flow whatsoever and is just mostly me ranting but to think the BBC can’t afford to run these sort of things makes me question the point of a public broadcaster who can’t provide “unique” services.


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 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.
JO
Jonwo (previously Jonwo87)
AlexS posted:
Here we stand, with rumours that the BBC are to scrap Politics Live and The Andrew Neil Show.

What on Earth is going on inside the minds of BBC management?

Scrapping regional shows to make them more “newsy” with no double headed presentation which for some people, are apart of their lives and make them feel less lonely. Thousands of staff are going to loose their jobs.

Don’t get me wrong, I know the government isn’t exactly generous with its funding. But when a public service broadcaster cannot afford to run key services then is there a point in it anymore?

The BBC continues to run stuff that hardly rates and yet wants to scrap programmes that form a part in the countries political agenda. We will just be left with bloody Question Time and The Andrew Marr Show at this point. Don’t get me wrong, they are alright shows, but after all these years they get a bit boring.

Up pops Politics Live with a lovely new studio, graphics, music and format.

Up pops Andrew Neil with a show to hold politicians to account.

Down pops those shows because they can’t afford it. Ridiculous.

This post has no flow whatsoever and is just mostly me ranting but to think the BBC can’t afford to run these sort of things makes me question the point of a public broadcaster who can’t provide “unique” services.


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 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.
MI
m_in_m Anglia (East) Look East
Jonwo posted:

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.
SW
Steve Williams
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


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.
Last edited by Steve Williams on 8 July 2020 8:43am
AN
another_beauty
But the cuts are affecting London too. BBC News also announced a separate round of 450 job losses back in January. Together with 150 jobs for the BBC Nations more recently. The huge amount the BBC has to save means nowhere is safe.


...and, of course, London is a region too, which gets conveniently forgotten by plenty of commentators, including those inside the capital.


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.
Last edited by another_beauty on 8 July 2020 9:26am

Newer posts