I think the nations TV thing is to allow some flexibility with programme pre-emption. For example, during the Referendum and then the General Election, BBC One Scotland opted out of network for coverage, but the BBC One schedule was shown on BBC Two Scotland instead, and the BBC Two network programmes were dropped.
They could still reduce the sub-opts to two with Cambridge and Oxford merging for a sub-opt bulletin from the more modern Cambridge studio. Both could still keep ST/Look East as the sustaining filler. There were plans for Cambridge and Oxford to become a region itself.
There weren't plans as such for the "Oxbridge region". There was some discussion, and a paper pilot to see if it made sense in coverage terms. It became quite clear that editorially it didn't really work.
You'd have to do a full opt not a sub-opt though - you'd be mad to try and do a single sub-opt out of two separate main shows into a single studio (i.e. get Look East Norwich and South Today Southampton to both provide simultaneous opt-out points to meet a single-sub opt)
To be honest - if the BBC are really serious about saving money - they could look at what ITV do, and pre-record the sub-opts earlier in the day, and use a single presentation and production team to make them. Horrible idea - but arguably better than ceasing the services entirely.
Regional networking of local radio already happens in a lot of places but there are some areas where it could be increased. Why does Radio Cambridgeshire need to have a separate breakfast opt out for Peterborough? W
I thought that particular sub-opt breakfast show had been axed? Others for Milton Keynes on 3CR and the Swindon breakfast show on BBC Wiltshire were axed.
However they did introduce a South Dorset breakfast show on BBC Radio Solent.
Do we need Radio 1 and Radio 2 when there are commercial equivalents that are just as good
The biggest load of **** I've read on this forum for a long while, especially concerning the latter of the two.
Indeed it is, but to your average politician (doesn't matter which party) R1 and 2 sound the same as 'all those commercial johnnies'. It's partially understandable, you're not going to be able appreciate the difference in anything you don't actually regularly watch or listen to ?
Do we need Radio 1 and Radio 2 when there are commercial equivalents that are just as good
The biggest load of **** I've read on this forum for a long while, especially concerning the latter of the two.
Indeed it is, but to your average politician (doesn't matter which party) R1 and 2 sound the same as 'all those commercial johnnies'. It's partially understandable, you're not going to be able appreciate the difference in anything you don't actually regularly watch or listen to ?
The local radio budget is only about £10m more than those services' combined budget, which if you compare the number of hours of original output makes local radio something of a bargain.
The comments about Radio 1 and 2 are interesting, Radio 3's budget is similar to Radio 1's but it only gets a fifth of the audience.
As always in these things, the first things people will suggest for closure are the the things that they've heard of, but they personally don't like, regardless of the value for money of that particular service.
If they have to cope with a real-terms budget cut of 20% though, no service will go untouched. The only real fair way to do it is to enforce a 20% cut on every department, with no ring-fencing of funds for "favourite" services. Unlike the licence freeze - which led to a long term plan to cope with a real-terms cut - this will be an instant chop, making planning that budget reduction impossible. I imagine there will be many department bosses with sore heads this morning dreading having to work out what else they can chop out without invoking a BBC Trust decision process.
One thing that might be in the BBC's interest is to promote the fact that the licence fee is currently already top-sliced by the government. I suspect many assume it goes entirely to the BBC, and don't realise part of the fee has gone towards broadband rollout and funding start-up costs of local TV.
In my opinion if the BBC are now being expected to fund the free licence fees for over 75s (which is a government policy) they shouldn't have the licence fee as top-sliced for other government projects such as the broadband roll-out. I fear unless the BBC gets at least an inflation linked rise in the licence fee and the iPlayer loophole closed then the cuts will be severe. Even if they do get those basics if they are made to fund the free TV licences then there will probably still be significant cuts.
:-(
A former member
Don't forget having to take control of the world service from the foreign office.
Your right the BBC needs to start people all the services the fee pays for.
Cut all funding for Sports rights, preserve funding for presentation. Make it clear to sporting bodies/authorities that access to the BBC and the audiences only it can deliver are a privilege.
Analyse costs for all programming, identify excesses, consider the effect removing them would have overall (e.g. reducing Worldwide revenue) and make relevant cuts.
Reallocate BBC Four's programming budget to BBC Two. Lease out Freeview airtime. Consider doing the same for CBBC's school hours.
Seek to merge S4C fully in to the BBC and make efficiencies in Wales.
Merge BBC Local Radio stations in to regions reflecting those on screen. Preserve local news/traffic output during breakfast and drivetime. Local station studios to close.
Create 3 'new' stations out of Radio 1, 1Xtra, Radio 2, Radio 3 and 6music. 1Xtra can fold back in to Radio 1 quite neatly straight away. Radio 3's output doesn't justify a full time national FM slot, but it should be retained, perhaps as daytime/evening output with some of Radio 2's more mellow output making up a new Radio 3. What's left of Radio 2 and 6music can merge together. It's tempting to do something with Radio 4 Extra but it must be so cheap that it's not really worth it.
