Nothing should be taken for granted

And, what, pray is the Government's response to this statement?

The change Cameron is advertising will just be a change from tired Labour. It looks less and less likely that there will be any change in the tired old Tory policy of: if times are hard slash and burn public servces.

Its well known that many Tories see the BBC as a kind of left wing think tank, even Labour in its centre right position sees it this way.

Given the present economic climate the Tories are likely to completely rethink the last vestiges of the Municiapl socialist era such as the NHS and the BBC. However Labour also want to do the same.

My own gut feeling is that however bad Labour is if the Tories get in it will be disasterous for this country as a whole. The kind caring face of Cameron placed like a mask over the Medeusa's head of Toryism. Lift the mask and we will all be turned to stone.

And about time too.

What is the divine riht of the BBC to go on spending taxpayers' money.

Is Jonathan Ross still not paid enough for larking around?

Are the nine new channels still not enough?

Whenare the news channels going to revert to their real function of news reporting rather than the blatant opinion shaping that they attempt at the moment?

This is a welcome first strike from Cameron and it will be hilarious to see newlabour defend the out of controll public sector spending of other departments like the NHS and Education; not just the bloated BBC.

Call an election.

Cameron is right on with this one. Expanding the public sector when all around the private sector belts are being tightened with lead to friction within the community. If people see the public sector continuing to get larger pay rises and better pensions that the rest of us it will lead down the road of unrest.
I know the public sector have had to catch up in the past 12 years but it has now and these increased demands on the public purse cannot be allowed to continue... until such a time comes as we can share the proceeds of growth again.

We need a Gov't spending freeze for 5 years with 50% of any increase in revenues being used to pay down Labour's debt pile and 50% aimed at cutting taxes for small businesses to get unemployment down.

In 5 years time improvements in public services can be paid out of increases in tax revenues from a growing economy with at least 50% still going towards Labour massive deb't pile.

In 10 years we'll be back to a sound economy based on sound money, not Gordon's funny munny!

It will be a long hard slog...........but it's great to get the first mutmerings of truth about our position and prospects as a country from a candid Politician. Well done Dave.

let truth be your guiding light for the next decade not hollow boasts...ala boom and must style!

A very small step in the right direction.

Don't forget the licence payer is also lumbered with a 'digital switch-over surcharge'.

And ofcom (supposedly the protector of the public) are suggesting that the BBC should keep receiving this - even AFTER the switch over is complete.

You can keep your hands out of my wallet Nick.

Well, the starting point is what he said last time, which was that overall, spending would increase, but not as fast as Labour state in their plans (though we all know Labour cannot now achieve what they say in their plans anyway).

Labour would like to portray the Tories as "nasty", of course, so that when they come to power, some awful hobgoblins will creep out from behind nice Dave and cut all sorts of vital services, simply out of a combination of spite, political purism and because it is fun to hurt people. That seems to be a strand in Labour's propaganda theme. I'm sure there will be some troll postings below that will assert this nastiness as if it is already in the smallprint of the manifesto.

The truth will be different, of course.

I expect a big squeezing out of projects like ID cards and other big computer infrastructure systems. I expect an effort to control the costs of PFI contracts. I would be very sad if there wasn't a push to deliver far better value out of suppliers to departments like Health and Education, where there is plenty of room for improvement. I also expect we will be drawing back gradually from our existing international commitments.

But that's it. Benefits can't be reduced. Reducing the numbers in receipt of benefits will actually cost money in the short term. The effectiveness of education and health can't be reduced either. A lot of public infrastructure costs less to keep going than to close down (e.g. libraries).

So no nastiness to be expected, otherwise there will be riots and the Conservatives won't get back in in 2015. Just a recognition that Labour's record includes a significant degree of carelessness and inefficiency over the operation of publicly funded enterprises, and a clear indication that a lot better can and will be done.

The upshot of Hutton was crude threats by HMG to the BBC over increases in the license fee.

Now 'Dave' is setting about them too.

As an outsider, I suspect that things have been very cosy at the BBC for a very long time.

Ordinary people probably don't know, for example, that the BBC's pension scheme is one of the finest in the land, ranking alongside those other mostly unloved public servants - MP's.

To its credit however, the Beeb has seen all this coming for some time, hence its commercial moves over the past couple of decades.

The Beeb will survive Dave's onslaught but the days of milk and honey are drawing to a close.

PS. None of this will probably affect those bods like Nick that you see on the google-box or many of the top backroom people - they are probably mostly all freelancers.

Sorry, in my message at 7, I meant international MILITARY commitments, of course. Typing and thinking not fully in sync today.

Freeze it? How about *reducing* it?

There's no need for four main Beeb channels, especially when tat like Hole in the Wall gets shown, or some of the downright unfunny and low quality stuff BBC 3 shows alongside repeats of Family Guy and Dr Who.

Out of the hours of output of BBC3, there's only really been Gavin and Stacy and Being Human that's been any good. The rest are either repeats (Dr Who, Family Guy) or mediocre stuff like My (insert embarrassing condition here) Body. Even the new Corden and Horne material is tosh.

Each increase in the licence fee seems to correspond with an increasingly lowbrow output.

BBC4 shows some good stuff, programs that you used to find on BBC2, but that is the television equivalent of the hinterlands. Is this really what Auntie wants to be? Purveyors of Lowest Common Denominator TV, with anything vaguely arty or educational shoehorned in where no one watches?

'Almost three quarters of British people believe there should be a public inquiry into the invasion of Iraq, an opinion poll suggests. '
BBC News

I think it can be taken for granted that David Cameron won't be asking for a public inquiry into the invasion of Iraq.

Cameron's ability to think outside of the box is one of his greatest assets I'm sure New Labour is finding. Nick rightly recognises the true symbolism of his comment. And, who knows, once the necessary but, for some, unpalatable truth begins to dawn, it is likely that the public will see the need to ditch the Sacred Cow of an endlessly funded, constantly increasing BBC, amongst many others.
Mega-salaried town hall bureaucrats should start looking over their shoulders perhaps also. Cameron will find vast swathes of the public sector, and the BBC, sitting like ripe friut waiting to be picked off, squashed and turned into a nice pie for the delectation and delight of the struggling electorate.

We have to be pretty niaive to think that public spending can continue on its present course during what looks like a period of austerity and high unemployment for years to come.

We have a government who during the good times expanded the public sector into a monster and now finds it almost impossible to control.

Where do they start weeding out the wastage which has become endemic?

It would be a massive undertaking which has been tried but abandoned in the past because of union objections. So much for state control.

Yet the money will no longer be there to pay for it in its present form unless taxation is increased to mind boggling levels or the level of printed money increases dramatically.

Neither are options without further damage to the economy or what will be left of it.

Privatisation of services seems to be the only option with the essential services such as military NHS and education remaining under government control.

This is a mammoth task so the plans need to be put into place right now.

Better to have leaner meaner public services than none at all.

Hmmm.... missed a trick here - the licence fee shouldn't be frozen, it should be abolished.

Why should we continue to be forced to fund massive amounts of waste & one-sided journalism?!

BBC Waste Money - It's What We Do.

Nick,

Give DC some credit at least for signalling his intentions to make cutbacks in the public sector, which is more than GB is doing. DC cannot do anything until he sees the books. Nobody says what their budget is until they see what`s coming in and what`s going out.

GB knows full which ever party wins the election they are going to have to make massive cut backs; because of the debt this country has accrued.

I personally don`t think GB is going to risk leaving calling an election until 2010. If he does he will then have to go through two budgets. I would not be suprised if he does his usual, "smoke and mirrors," budget this year and goes to the country in May 2009

If GB waits until 2010 to call an election his options of hiding the consequences of the enoromous public debt to the electorate will be about zero. This year he may just get away with it; but another 12 months of poor returns on savings, cut backs in the public sector, a decreasing job market and the inevitable big tax hikes in 2010 all points to an election in 2009. Also I don`t think he will be able to hold his party together for another year. Labour aren`t really known for its unity once the going gets tough and Brown is really running out of talent for cabinet posts if he got rid of those plotting a coup.

Nicholas:

I also wouldnt rule out an element of payback either for cosying up to New Labour either since the Gilligan affair....

Nick - I hope you're right about all the things Cameron might mean when talking about freezing the licence fee.

But WOW! That's an awful lot to infer from just one thing the guy has said.

Anyone who does not think there is going to be massive cuts in public spending in the near future is a fool to themselves.

The state is going to need every penny it can get given the debts the current government has run up so there will have to be significant restructuring of budgets.

I don't think Cameron will go far enough but even then it will be too far for many.

Blimey if the licence fee is frozen the mods will never get round to authorising comments :oP

Good for David Cameron. It is absolutely absurd that Jeremy Paxman is on one million pounds plus a year. He needs to be de-leveraged along with all the other excesses of the era. And fast.

The risible Paul Heiney was opinionating while reviewing the papers on Radio 4 yesterday that blogging feedback on articles and blogs such as this were a monopoly of mr angry and that "something must be done" to stop people (such as everyone here!) having their say. Feudal clap trap from one of its least impressive gate keepers!

The world has changed. Time for the BBC to change with it.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

The likes of Jonathan Ross will be ******* devastated... although all it'll mean in practice is quality programmes such as Yellowstone will be shelved as they still have the wasters under watertight contracts.

Will they still be able to afford you Nick?

It's about time ! The public sector (BBC included) may think it can sail on regardless, but everyone must face up to the fact that it has become much too bloated under Labour. In fact, given the huge increase in public debt, the public sector must shrink back to levels much lower than in anyone's memory.

So, 'former Carlton PR man attacks BBC for some easy headlines'. Good to see Cameron is developing the agenda. Hardly newsworthy is it? For once I agree with the LibDems.

Yes that sounds about right lets stop the worlds best provider of TV and websites ..... its un-British to be a success. Eton was it?

What makes you think this is such a profound decision, Nick? If this is an example of his future pronouncements on policy, I've lost interest already. He is so predictable.

I am afraid those of us who are not enamoured with all of the BBC's output find it galling that it can justify its youth orientated output aimed at a section of the population that probably do not spend its time watching television in the first place.


There are flagship channels which deserve protection Radio 4 and BBC2 are gems but why do we need Radio 1 and 2 when the commercial sectors can compete on equal terms?

Why do we need such duplication in the news service? News 24 and the main BBC1 news broadcasts should be one and the same and why do we have to have different funky news broadcasts on BBC3? Every major event there are representatives from each news programme, this could all be rationalised.


If all other sectors of society [apart from the public sector] are having to make cuts , so should the BBC and I would go further than David Cameron and actually look at reducing the BBC license fee – I doubt the programme quality would suffer much.

The BBC represents the worst excesses of the public sector, unable to regulate itself or act in a manner befitting the times.

In the digital age it will be possible to identify all BBC consumers, as the analog signal will be shut off and the only way to listen or watch will require a subscription to BT, Sky or cable. At present we have an entirely unsatisfactory body called TV Licensing that employs all sorts of intimidatory tactics against the general population at large demanding payment with not much justification other than the blithe assumption - everyone watches TV!

Cameron should go further and link a TV License to the what the viewer actually watches. When a TV subscription is taken out if all BBC channels are chosen, then the subscriber pays the full licence. If only some channel a partial amount is paid; if none then no licence. The licence could also be collected as part of the subscription service with the digital provider.

Even with a reduced rate offering the income to the BBC might actually rise. The other benefit is the days of taking someone to court over non payment of licence would be over, as the digital provider would simply switch off the signal. Similarly some of the commercial channels could get more of the licence fee income based on real viewing figures, as existing figures are based on surveys.

The BBC/gov would then need to decide on overseas charging and the internet use such as this site. Will the BBC radio World Service continue to be broadcast on short wave? As someone who used to work abroad in the pre-internet era, the BBC performed an invaluable service and is much appreciated by those who do not always have access to truthful reporting.

To base anything on the creative figures that come out of the government these days would be madness.

Far better to say we don't believe the figures and are unable to make detailed plans.....that would be prudent and lay the emphasis at Darlings door to come clean because atm its just unbudgeted spend spend spend from No11 with no plan involved......

Cameron's advisers are very clever. What he has said in the speeches you mention is precisely nothing. He is too late to get the BBC licence fee reduced until next year - but he is paying a little back to Murdock for his nice Med. trip to his yacht last year. As for apologising - he has nothing to apologise for so it has cost him nothing. He must like baked beans as he is very wet and windy at present.

I agree that there is a signal from David Cameron. It's called common sense.
It was stated recently that advertising on ITV was down, and I'm glad Mr Cameron has kept his finger on the pulse.
The ball is in the BBC court now.
As for his spending plans, Mr Cameron is going to have to apply more same common sense, and he'll have to be careful in his timing of announcements, or the government will take his party ideas and make them their own!
That goes for the Libs too!

This is really worrying and confirms my long-held fears that if elected the Tories would do real damage to the BBC and turn it into yet another rubbish media service devoted to the mindless celeb populist culture. Whatever you do David, just please please lay off Radio 3 & 4, currently the only remaining route to sane thinking in these troubled times.

Unless Cameron is politically naive, he will keep his powder dry for as long as possible and even then he will have real presentational problems.

He has a definite dilemma on this. Brown has constructed a huge and growing client state comprising public sector workers, people on benefits and credits and the families of all of them.

It will be easy for Brown to play to that audience and tough for Cameron to avoid spooking them.

This state reliant client base has been expanded by design, not by accident. Brown set out to grow the public sector at the expense of the private and to move government support for individuals from the safety net of its original intention to a fishing net.

It is hugely damaging and ultimately unsustainable but turkeys don't vote fro Christmas.

David Cameron I am sure will answer the question by stating that the economy at this point in time needs to be treated with prudency.If this was put into practise at the BBC, then there would be no need to raise the licence fee. but Iam afraid over the past year with the Jonathan Ross afair coming to mind, Stable Door and Horse comes to the fore.

Cameron is sending exactly the right messages.

Public funded bodies and government need to do more with less.

The reality is that we can no longer afford bloated organisations.

As for the BBC brand - this must be protected - however, it is time that the BBC took a long hard look at itself and came up with proposals for change, before someone forces drastic change on the BBC.

The cultural bias that pervades BBC news and political content on a number of topics means that there are a lot of people who are very willing to see very deep and radical change within the BBC.

Ditto radical change and cost control with respect Government departments.

2 Alfred Earnest Ramsey

My message 7, para 2.

Your post isn't exactly original.

You might at least have tried to think up a logical reason why the Conservatives would like to destroy the NHS, rather than creating a bit of gothic imagery and then hoping your more gullible readers will fill in the gaps.

As I said in 7, the effectiveness of the NHS cannot be reduced, otherwise there will be riots and the Conservatives will be kicked out in 2014. Even if you reduce them to the basest instinct, the Conservatives have zero motivation to mess with health. Therefore, they won't.

In case Labour supporters had not noticed Government income will be somewhere in the region of £100bn less than expenditure. Keep spending more than we earn, a great economic policy, it is not like their is any huge inefficiency in the public sector.

Oh by the way the last Tory government still increased spending in real terms but just reduced the percentage share of GDP.

New YouGov poll out:

The result for the YouGov poll is here.

16/03/2009 - Voting intentions, economy and conflict regions [ Sunday Times ] ...

Voting intentions
Labour 30%
Tory 42%
LibDem 16%

Roll On 2010 - less than 15 months to go!

Here we go again on the 'Cameron hunting' trail - as a BBC journalist, Nick Robinson is expected to be objective in his reporting but this does not appear to be the case. Blog afer blog all we see is more Tory bashing and praises for Golden Brown!

If he's talking about capping the renumerative excesses of Woss, Wogan and the like then he's probably onto a vote-winner - but he needs to be more specific

The problem with past Tory cuts to the public sector is that the highest earners are either protected or packed off with a big payout. The pain falls disproportionately on the clerks, cooks and cleaners who are transferred to an outsourced provider in the name of budget cuts. After the euphamistically-named "Consultation Period" their wages are cut and their workload increased. Those who can afford to do so bale out, the rest stay, demoralised and disaffected.

If Dave is still trying to distance himself from Thatcher and all her evil works then he needs to be more forthcoming about what expenditures and what levels in the hierachy he intends to attack.

Wossie at the Job Centre might just swing it for me. Somebody on 15 or 20K being ground into the dust is just same old Tory.

Unlike most broadcasters (who sell viewers to advertisers using programme content as bait) the BBC sells programme content to viewers. This means that the BBC are not in a position to be dictated to by advertisers. Other advertisement-free broadcasting organisations in the world are funded from taxation and so are effectively in the pockets of governments.

The BBC's legendary independence is almost unique among broadcasters.

One thing I want to know, though:

The digital switchover requires the replacement of every TV receiver in the country. (The ones fitted with the appropriate connector can still be used as *displays* for an external *receiver*.) Why was it not mandated before the switchover that every digital receiver must be fitted with a reader for a conditional-access viewing card?

This way, the BBC programmes could have been scrambled; and there would be no need for poison-pen letters, detector vans or enforcement squads. You don't buy the card, you don't get a picture, simple as. Leave the sound in the clear, so that blind people can still listen for free.

Limited-hours viewing cards could also be sold, for people who wanted to watch only a small amount of TV and for whom a full-time licence would prove uneconomical (the same people who do without a TV set at all today). Certain especially important events and public service announcements in times of national emergency could be broadcast in the clear.

It's true that such a change would shift the payment model from per-household to per-set (and recording devices would also need a card in order to record BBC programmes), but this is not utterly insurmountable. A person living alone but having more than one TV set (perhaps one in the living room and another in the bedroom) could buy just one card and swap it between sets as needed.

During the initial consultation, which would necessarily have involved all major players in the broadcasting and setmaking industries, such a system must have been at least mentioned. So who was responsible for rejecting it, and on what grounds?

What's this? An attack on my beloved beer and BBC on the same day?
It's Armegeddon.
I'd leave the country but the beer and telly is hopeless abroad.

Yes, these are hard times. If the BBC is finding it hard to meet its commitments, like everybody else, there are ways they can economise. For starters, cut the money wasted on Jonathan Ross to the absolute minimum. If he quits, good. Somehow, I don't see commercial stations running after him or making any offers.

lets all say

"cut public services, lower taxes for the rich"

Anything that will help to reduce the fat salaries of some of these so called celebrity stars is fine by me. We all have to cut our cloth according to our means. The BBC are no different.

hmm....there's nothing like a bunch of people speculating about what they *suspect* or *might* be the case. Some really laughable comment here. Not sure they really *deserve* a broadcaster like the BBC.... have you tried ABC? Star - or even Channel 4 recently?
Maybe the BBC should just surrender and let us live on a diet of old Star-TV style repeats, episodes of Friends and partisan reports from the so-called broadsheets.....mind you, given that no-one whips itself as well as the beeb, I suspect someone senior there will be suggesting this shortly.....

I am involved with a venture backed private business. In the past 6 months we have made 25% of the staff redundant, taken 15% pay cuts at board level and suspended pension contributions.

Meanwhile our politicians continue to draw full salaries and build up pension rights that ordinary people can only dream of.

Now it seems that the BBC just does not get it either - get real - the economy is a mess and we ALL have to tighten our belts.

I enjoy your radio programs on various aspects of politics but a few days ago when you had Portillo et al pontificating about how to finesse the 'politics' of restraining government department budgets I was driven to distraction.

Instead of playing politics we need some simple action

What Brown or the next government needs to do is say that they are prepared to lead by example, take a pay cut, have their pension contributions suspended and also instigate an immediate 10% pay cut for every civil servant. ( If you wanted to shield the low paid then put a threshold on it )

Only then will I believe that they truly understand what is going on and are prepared to join us in the fight to rescue the economy.

As it is they seem to be content to fight over how far they can get their snouts into the trough !

Can you please ask the next politician you interview if he or she is prepared to lead by example and take a pay cut

Now that would be interesting to hear

How is it that freezing the licence fee for the BBC is twisted into something more sinister by our dear Mr Robinson? Did your paymasters at the treasury issue instructions.? I'm surprised benefits, health service etc. wasn't mentioned in the same article , or would that have been just a little bit over the top? God knows if ever there was a need for a curb on public spending, it's now, the BBC needs a considerable paring, as does the expenditure on politicians, equal rights ,focus groups quangos etc. Roll on a chancellor with a big pair of scissors.

so he is sorry and then this is the best plan he can come up with ??????????

come on I want David shouting from the rooftops , screaming at PMQ's not looking for a sorry from Gordon, but exposing the Labour government for the sham it is and then detailing exactly how he will start the new system that is needed as the way things are going will never continue

Bet the people who are out of a job , worrying about losing their house and stting there going phew David has sorted it all out so what if we cant eat or afford anything we will be able to put the savings from the TV licence towards a potato



in normal circumstances this story may merit a look but come on for gods sake there is bigger things out there to tackle

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

WOW!
'Dave' has finally had a BIG idea to save the world's economy!!!!!!!

Good grief..................

So the Conservatives supported the governments bank bailout to the tune of £1.3 trillion, but is opposed to the BBC charging £3 extra? seems pretty bizarre to me, everyone i've been speaking to today (not scientific obviously) has been saying the same thing as when the VAT cut came, that politicians talk with passion about money which is insignificantly small but say nothing when mind-bogglingly big sums go up in smoke, is there a reason for this Nick?

And there I was thinking that public spending helped to stimulate the economy...

The public sector can only expand and be sustained by a private sector.

If the private sector shrinks, so must the public sector.

As GB will see, one is dependent on the other, not the other way round.

Reducing public sector reduction of cost does not neccessarily mean reduction of public sector services; it can and should lead to less wastage of money, better management, and greater efficiency.

If we're really lucky, it will mean the abolition of the FSA (replaced by a smaller smarter department), the removal of several pointless quangoes and the disappearance of focus consultancies.

If DC wants to be remebered as one of the greats, start reforming anything in sight; it's way overdue.

The BBC wastes money hand over fist. Most news programmes have two news readers -why? This applies to both central and regional stations.
Where else do we have two people doing one persons job. Lets think now, government, Whitehall, the public sector.
The BBC needs to drastically trim its staffing levels, reduce executive pay, make less period dramas, stop showing so many repeats and start showing Match of the Day in HD.
Why isn't MotD shown in HD - doesn't Rupert allow it?
The BBC needs a major overall.

But thirdly and most importantly, it is a signal to the public sector that nothing should be taken for granted and that he, David Cameron, is willing to say no. If he's ready to freeze the licence fee, this question is raised: what is his intention for government spending for which he is directly responsible?

The BBC never even covered the speech, but if he is signalling a need to haul in the spending then surely that is what all the economic experts are telling Brown.

Best find out what the government are going to say

Ha! At last! Someone with an iota of common sense.

The BBC have taken us, and our license fees, for granted for far too long. It's about time they were told in no uncertain terms to get their act together.

If Brown's too impotent to give us justice the the UK...

...it looks like we just might get it from the 'good ol' U S of A!

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7946124.stm

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7945774.stm

Wonderful policy statement of intent by David Cameron.

Why should a left leaning, human rights pressure group, pro EU, politically correct, organisation get increasing public funds to diseminate New Labour propoganda.
A news department that never confronts Labour politicians, such as the unelected Lord Mandelson.

What really annoys - the absence of choice- don't pay, go to jail.

What really turned me off. A BBC economics editor attacking Cameron personally for suggesting some young women chose single motherhood as a career choice. As though this never happens.

Post 16. I was just thinking the same myself.

The problem for Cameron is that it is still a long time until the next election and that Labour MPs do not want to to lose their seats.

Brown can announce public spending cuts that are popular eg ID cards, some giant IT projects and a few others like slowing down on several promises. Then Cameron will not be able to claim them. What he will then force Cameron to announce is what less populist cuts he is prepared to make. A lot of people have been making the assumption Public Sector = Bad, but with the large number of people working in the public sector and many more receiving support from it, 'the privacy of the ballot box' may reveal a lack of apetite for such a view.

A further problem is that there had been an indication before the crisis that he would follow Labour's spending plans for a year or two. If he can change then so can Labour. There is also the problem of explaining how cutting expenditure will lead to better services. Yes, we can all point to public services which are not good enough - but the curious fact is that the majority of people are very satisfied with the NHS, believe that teachers are doing a good job and are totally mystified by the fashionable talking down of the country. But then good news never made great headlines.

We need a change of government as the present lot have passed their sell by date, but I'm still unconvinced by the 'special offer' that is being touted about. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

RobinJD asks what is the BBC's divine right to 'go on spending tax-payers' money'.
I can't actually remember anyone in the BBC claiming they had such a right, though it's true they have to pitch hard to whichever govt controls the license fee to earn an increase.
Also, it may be 'tax- payers' money - but it's not a tax, though its detractors work overtime to characterize it as such. It's what it says on the tin - a license fee for a specific service.
Go back to the origins of the BBC in 1923 and its impossible to find a decade in which it - and its news division in particular - was not being baited for its 'politically partial' or 'unpatriotic' coverage. Some things never change. Other countries regard that as a symptom of its independence.

Sorry he feels the BBC is overpaid - but then it's hard to fund on pea-nuts a service that provides more than 40 local radio stations, seven national speech, music and drama stations, four national tv channels, and the most read and most diverse - and probably most respected - web site in the world.

As to finding it 'hilarious' that Mr Cameron may choose to put the knife to public sector services such as health and education as well as the BBC - no doubt he'll be in fits if the Tory leader also tackles those giants of probity and financial prudence, the (formerly) commercially-controlled Banks. But I think he might have to wait for that giggle for rather a long time.

Yes, public spending cuts are coming.

One of the problems is the public sector final salary thingy.

I think the solution here is clear... : Yes, of course you can "retire" at 60 on 40/80ths.... of your final salary.... the only stipulation is that you will have to carry on turning up to work... 40/80ths of the time.

Hope that's allright, Nu Lib / Lab / Con... redefining retirement.. if you don't like it, blame your parents.

And another thing.... you should have had more kids and brought them up to expect less.

Although, this only postpones the problem... but we like that.

Clearly, DC not gone down well with the Mods, and thats a hat-trick.

It would seem Cameron has seen an opportunity that he simply cannot let pass. In the economic downturn that we have at this moment in time, any demand by a public organization for more money and using the same tired excuses for it, will be seen by any politician of any political persuasion, either something to court or condemn. Cameron has very cleverly hit the spot when bringing up the subject of the license. Not because it is a real plea for people having to find the extra, but in a climate as this, the government allowing this increase, shows them to be out of touch and arrogant. The opposition has seen this, hence the speech. Nothing will change for that is not the desired outcome. Its about how the parties are seen by the public. In this case, Cameron has out flanked Brown, again. Also with a cabinet hell bent intent on pushing through public reforms that the country cannot afford, they are leaving the doors wide open for cuts in spending that are going to be needed eventually. So, unless Brown, fully aware that the next election is going to be a bloodbath(according to the polls), he can either respond in kind( doubtful) or carry on busy as usual,( more than likely).

Nearly thirty posts covering the best part of 5 hours...


certainly cant take prompt moderation of any posts for granted.

Come on BBC, sort it out for heavens sake!!!

Good ma Cameron- just lets here you say those magic words- privatidation of the BBC machine, tool of the Guardian reading lefties!

Every license fee payer should get an allocation of shares.

Lets free people everywhere in this fine country from the Beeb Tax.

I really am envious of those above that know the minds of the Tory front bench team. I wish that I had a quarter of their imagination.

Come on Mr.Robinson, Tony Blair is long gone. We, the voting public, are no longer fooled by the spin. (I was never a convert). So let us have the truth, not just your fervid imagination please.

If you can really see into Mr.D.Cameron's mind, then say so, not just put out a load of pro-goverment propaganda.

I wonder how many people were fooled? Cannot say, appears that the Moderators are on Go-Slow again.

sounds good, the TV license needs to be reined in a bit, and government really needs to tighten its belt in the next decade so it makes sense to freeze the license

clearly Cameron is now edging his way towards saying 'spending cuts' - the crisis has escalated so much that people are now coming around to the idea and Cameron can risk going against Brown's tractor lists

RE THE BEEB EXPENSES?

THERES PLENTY OF FAT TO BE CUT AT THE

UPPER END OF THE FOOD CHAIN.

START IN THE BOARD ROOM FIRST!!!


CAMERON HAS A VERY VALID POINT!

SOON GORDY WILL BE OFFERING A TRACTOR

AND PLOUGH TO EVERY VOTER.

SAD BECAUSE WE WILL ALL SOON NEED

SUCH TOOLS!

ROLL ON THE POTATO REPUBLIC.


BUST BRITAIN BY GORDY & THE GANG SOON

TO BE FEATURED BY THE BBC NEWS WITH A

PERSONAL FOCUS ON EACH OF US.

lots of comments on here seeming to support a reduction in the public spending area.

All good - I tend to agree

Unfortunately, I suspect that what we have on this blog is not representative of what we'll get at the ballot box. Even on the current polling data, it is possible to get a hung parliament.

However, I believe that the blog issue around the BBC is a smokescreen. We urgently need to be talking about reining in public spending on non-urgent front line services, not trivialities. Fine, leave the license fee where is is, when the money dries up, Jonathan Ross will have to take a pay cut as certainly ITV and C4 haven't got that kind of money now.

The bigger debate is reining in public spending!!! We need to have it now so people are truly aware of the excesses of the state, and its growth under Labour



Regardless of how people distrust Gordon Brown, there is still a inbuilt distrust of the Tories in some peoples minds (in the same way it tood 18 years for Labour to to rehabilitated).

MY bet is that the Labour election broadcasts will focus on a number of the good things they've done, followed by

1) The Tories wouldn't have given you these nice things (that we've paid for on credit 'cos we were too scared to tax you, less it reminded you nasty tax & spend labour)

2) The Tories will take them away from you.

3) The Tories are to blame for the current issues, its all a result of the things they did 20 years ago (but we've not fixed, as we quite liked the tax revenue from the City)

4) REMEMBER MAGGIE THATCHER !!!



Oh, by the way I voted for the other lot :-)

"....David Cameron, is willing to say no. If he's ready to freeze the licence fee, this question is raised: what is his intention for government spending for which he is directly responsible?"

trackback a few weeks ago nick, think youll find that he has already explained that he would grow public spending slower than this shower propose to do

a more apt and required question would be to gordon brown:

how are labour going to fund their future projected spending increases?

higher taxes?
less benefits?
cutting services?

i dont believe labour can even match their own spending projections, as they are in power, hows about you BBC journos hold the government to account?

"..... the Tory leader's main apology was for basing his spending plans on government growth projections.
He clearly intending to change that; the only question is when he'll tell us what exactly he means."

could the answer be when an election is called?
he could call a goat a sheep and it wouldnt matter one iota, as the conservatives are not running the country.
only when they are, or are involved in elections, and present the country with a manifesto to base their judgement on, would your question be warranted.

i seem to recall the chancellor telling us the finances were in a state, last seen during the second world war, dont recall you asking similar questions of the government then nick?

Come on Alex - explain - why the capitals? Are you a computer program?

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

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

Nick,

I know you are always interested in promoting the webcameron tory spin, but you have missed a fourth point, which in Cameron's mind it will be at the top of your list: Desperate times, call for desperate measures - the tories hope the public will think that they understand their pain during these hard times. - Rubbish, complete rubbish. Is this the best the tories can do ? It's the global economy stupid.

Good

Why have I been given a number ???

Cameron's ideas do not go anywhere near tackling the explosion in cost of government and near-government services. His aim for the BBC is just not enough. He needs better groundbreaking ideas if he is to be taken seriously about improving cost effectiveness in how taxpayers money is deployed.

Much as I love aspects of the BBC I contend that the Corporation has gone well beyond its public service broadcasting remit and needs a jolly good shake-up.

I'd split the BBC into three.

There should be the creation of the PSB component of TV News 24, Parliament, BBC 4 and CBBC, together with Radio 4, Radio 3, Local Radio, and the BBC web sites associated with these TV and Radio services. These to continue to be funded by licence and constrained from competition. All material to be solely the copyright of the BBC to put an end to the "this item cannot be broadcast for copyright reasons" that has crept into podcasts and iPlayer Download services.

The World Service funded by government is a separate entity in any event. It can contract for access to material and services from the BBC PSB organisation in relation to the value that government puts on programming for non-UK services. It can buy non-PSB services according to the funding arrangements with government.

The rest of BBC broadcasting including all sport programming, and non-broadcasting media services, should be formed into a commercial venture, not funded by the taxpayer but by subscription. For a period of time, say 10 years, this business should be protected from acquisition, demerger or other market activity, and then should become a plc.

The BBC's extensive broadcasting and media archives should be inserted into a new charitable national broadcasting archives trust with a widened role, taking responsibility for maintaining archived broadcast material from all UK broadcasters and financed on a similar basis to any other archival service.

The above ideas would allow for a significant reduction in the licence fee. The subscription model would test the real value of services such as BBC1 and Radio 2 and give the management the opportunity to achieve commercial competitiveness not possible within the existing remit. And for me it would create a proper legal entity to protect against broadcasters making arbitrary decisions on whether to keep or destroy archive material.

#72 brownloadofrubbish

Having read a number of posts on this blog, I totally agree with you.... the Tory-in-Chief talking about spending cuts really does sound quite sinister and New Labour are bound seize upon our fear of Thatcherite cuts.

Whilst it's obvious that spending will have to be cut by whoever forms the next government, I really think David Cameron is making a mistake by starting with the BBC.

Although many (but probably not the majority) in the UK have an ambivalent feeling towards the BBC, it's a national institution and one that the majority are really quite proud of.

Yes, Jonathan Ross et al are overpaid, however, the vast majority working for the BBC are badly underpaid and are regularly being made redundant.

If David Cameron is prepared to decimate this national institution, then how is he going to approach our other institutions like the NHS?

Personally, I don't have to vote New Labour or Conservative as Vince Cable is my local MP and I like him and have voted for him since '97.

With Tory tough talk and New Labour seizing upon it, I wonder what the rest of the country will do?

In some ways the BBC has been allowed to get out of control like the banking sector. So called "stars" being paid vast sums because it was their "market worth". And, just like the bankers this has been found out to be a load of tosh and now there is no market for them. I never understood it. If a particular "star" could get more money elsewhere let them go. There are plenty of others to fill the slot.

So until the BBC can stop wasting vast sums on taxis, bottled water etc. then freeze the fee.

As for the political motive, well, can any of our pampered representatives know what it is like during these "difficult" times? Just look at the expenses debacle. It is not confined to a single party.

Nick,

As someone who pays the telly tax (obviously I have no choice, unless I want to receive threatening & menacing letters and visits), can you answer me this with regards to BBC waste...

How many staff did the BBC send to the US to cover the recent American election? How much, in total, did this cost? Why did nearly every single tv and radio programme need to send their own team to cover it??

Is it true that this question has been asked of the BBC many times & they've refused to answer? Is it also true that they claimed immunity from Freedom of Information requests citing 'journalistic privileges' or some other such nonsense??

There are massive amounts of waste at the BBC - the US election is just one example - I wouldn't be surprised if the licence fee could be cut in half without dramatically effecting the quality of the output...

Its about time that the Licence was abolished and the funds collected thru our council tax bills, in the same way we pay for the police and parish councils.

I suspect that 99.999% of households use the BBC's services in some way.

Collecting the funds thru councle tax bills and passing them directly to the BBC would be a huge saving in the licance managerment.

The only group that would need Licences would be comercial properties, but they already pay a higher fee.

If all house holds paid this way then the anual fee would drop to between 100-120. Pensioners and other people who receive discounted licences would also sinply and cheeply be handled.

So Brown finally states that he takes full responsibility for the economic crash. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. So why hasn't he resigned then?

What is it with politicians that seem to think that merely uttering the words "I take responsibility" is enough? Correct me if I am wrong, but, I always thought that taking responsibility for something that has gone very badly wrong means that some ACTION of some sort follows those words. Action in the form of an apology, (like I am sorry) followed by a confession of guilt, (It was my fault) and then action to fix the problem, OR if the problem is sufficiently serious, an immediate resignation.

Brown has done nothing to fix the problem. he has set aside hundreds of billions in insurance for the economy AFTER it had already crashed. By doing so he has guaranteed that any recovery will be strangled and snuffed out by frighteningly high tax rises for everyone. He has run the economy in such a way that the UK has lost over 2 trillion pounds of value in the last 18 months. That is how much has been wiped from the value of shares and properties and businesses. To me, that is a resignation issue AT THE VERY LEAST. A more just action would be that he should be charged with criminal negligence and thrown in jail.

He has done NOTHING to demonstrate that he has taken responsibility for this crash. He will not apologise, because he still thinks that he has done nothing wrong.

Oh, and one other thing - as a way of convincing us that the BBC isn't wasteful, perhaps you'd now like to publish your expenses in full....? I know you've refused before.

Nick,

I have always tried to be honest. If Cameron must now tell the real truth about the state of the economy. We know that taxes must rise, that the economy is shot to pieces. There must be job cuts in the public services, that pensioners are really going to suffer, the generation who have just retired have stripped the cupboard bare.

For too long we have lived on past glories, we are just like any other third world bankrupt country. We need to enter the real world, our past always was not sustainable, the demographic nuclear time bomb has just started to explode. People will otice a massive decrease in our incomes, not all pensioners are like Sir Fred Goodwin who did so much for the Princes Trust, well according to Harriet Harman that was why he got his knighthood.

Regarding the sabre rattling emanating from Downing Street about Iran possibly developing a nuclear bomb - and the evidence so far is as flimsy as the 45 minute WMD threat - is the persona of Gordon Brown actually a metamorphosis of George W Bush?

Is the aim of this gov not to alienate the entire world's population of muslims? This is also at odds with Obama's gov who are anxious to open up a dialogue with Iran. What is going on? I cannot think of one part of the UK electorate that will be impressed by this rhetoric.

I do worry for this country. The vast sums of money (or potential future debt) pumped into banks, public sector etc. just seem to be falling through the cracks. It needs to be reined in. What is the point in owning a mansion to pass onto your children if it is 100% owned by a bank and in need of repair?

For all the spending on public services there have been improvements but not in line with the expenditure. Education has become "tick box" and although we are told our school leavers are the most qualified ever we are slipping behind in science and innovation.

We need to invest in the future and not propping up the past. Hard decisions are needed which requires a strong leader. Just who is up for the challenge?

From a Scottish perspectvie the BBC is nothing but a propaganda tool for the British. It dostorts Scottish news to reflect badly upon the Governement we elected, that is the SNP. Union good, independence bad, that summarises the BBC's view.

When Tony Bliar or Bungler Brown have a cabinet reshuffle, it comes with a headline of bringing in fresh talent, when the Alec Salmond has a reshuffle it comes with the headline, ministers sacked., etc.

The BBC has been thinking for the past 10 plus years if Scotland should have a news programme at 6 pm to cover its needs. They are still not sure. The political and social map has changed, the BBC have chosen not to keep pace, thius pandering to Unionist politicians in Westminster.

The sooner this organisation is broken up and fees returned to the good people of England and Scotland, the better.

TDBs

11. At 4:11pm on 16 Mar 2009, Poprishchin (U11710922) wrote:
"'Almost three quarters of British people believe there should be a public inquiry into the invasion of Iraq, an opinion poll suggests. '
BBC News

I think it can be taken for granted that David Cameron won't be asking for a public inquiry into the invasion of Iraq."

WHY?

TORIES CALL FOR AN INQUIRY

Nick,

it is possible that we have been involved in torture, whether directly or indirectly. There is a petition on the Downing Street site calling for an inquiry. Sign it, let's see if there is any hope left for our moral values, or are we just like the Nazis, either we followed orders or we didn't know what was going on.

@88 re Iran, You are correct. Iran is a signitory to the NPT and have acted entirely in accordance with the letter of that treaty. (according to the IAEA). They have industrial scale centrifuges, but they can only enrich uranium to about 5% which is what is required for a nuclear power station. ALL the LOW enriched uranium is permanently monitored by the IAEA. To build a nuclear weapon, they would need to be able to increase the enrichment process to over 90%. Their centrifuges are not capable of this.

Even the American intelligence agencies are stating clearly that Iran does NOT currently posses the capability to make a nuclear weapon and have NOT demonstrated ANY intention to do so.

What annoys the west, is not any potential to build a nuclear weapon, but Iran's status as an independent nationalist state. Iran wants to be wholly self sufficient as a nation and that is completely at odds with the new world order goals of the international elite. These elitists want to have the power to switch off any region in the world so that they have ultimate control over the people. That is why they are happy for Iran to have a nuclear power station, so long as Iran has to rely on the west to provide the fuel for it.

IF Camerons so bad and Brown is so good for the BBC, Why are you Journo's going on strike over redundancies.

Lets face it why do we need Peston when we have steph flanders. Why do we need Nick when we can read Mandelson

@85 doggz

"So Brown finally states that he takes full responsibility for the economic crash. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. So why hasn't he resigned then?"

No he didnt what he said was "i accept responsibility for my actions but it wasnt those actions that had any bearing on the situation whatsoever, Its a global crisis mate, not me gov, my actions were all ok!"

"90. At 09:19am on 17 Mar 2009, The_Dogs_B wrote:

From a Scottish perspectvie the BBC is nothing but a propaganda tool for the British. It dostorts Scottish news to reflect badly upon the Governement we elected, that is the SNP. Union good, independence bad, that summarises the BBC's view."

The BBC is a propaganda outlet for the English Establishment. It is not an anti-Scottish thing, it is a pro-establishment thing. ANYTHING that goes against the globalist elitist agenda, (that is centred in the City of London), is rejected by them and either censored not to be reported on at all, or is ridiculed.

Attacks on the BBC or populist sabre rattling.. you decide..

...Just goes to show that you can't be too careful!

Re: 81 & others

I am not quite sure why you think that cuts in public expenditure should mean cuts in public services.

Anyone who has worked in the private sector knows that over the last couple of decade there have been repeated cost cutting exercises. Those exercises are generally not carried out to reduce the services to customers* but to cut expenditure and improve efficiency and competitiveness.

Most private sector senior managers know that they can only charge what their customers are willing - or can afford - to pay. That message simply does not seem to have got through to the public sector.

Someone needs to tell the people at the BBC**, and indeed the public sector generally, that they can only exist if the private sector generates enough wealth to pay the taxes that support them.

Given the economic mess the Labour Government has created the wealth in the private sector the tax revenue that flows from that is going to be drastically reduced. Thus, the public sector needs to learn that it will have to cut its clothes according to the available cloth.

* Call centres might be the exception that proves the rule!

** The contempt in Caroline Quinn's voice when she report David Cameron's announcement on Radio 4 yesterday evening had to be heard to be belived.

If anyone needs cheering up go to guardian.co.uk/politics page and have a look at the portrait of GB.
It looks like it was inspired by a David Blaine poster...
"For my next illusion... (captions welcome)

96: "The BBC is a propaganda outlet for the English Establishment. It is not an anti-Scottish thing, it is a pro-establishment thing. ANYTHING that goes against the globalist elitist agenda, (that is centred in the City of London), is rejected by them and either censored not to be reported on at all, or is ridiculed"

I agree with your comment that it is not an anti-Scottish thing but more general and to some extent also agree with your comment about "the global elist agenda". However, I do not think it is centred on the City of London but on the Guardian and has at its core a politically correct, anti traditional vales and pro-EU agenda.

And whilst on the subject of the Guardian can anyone explain why virtually all public sector jobs with a salary of more than around £25k have to be advertised there? Does anyone know the total of the public sector spend with that newspaper?

Surely, with today's technology a dedicated website for public sector jobs would cut out a great deal of the cost. I appreciate that this might cause problems with loss of revenue for other newspapers - eg the Times and Telegraph - but they seem to deal mainly with the more senior jobs. So perhaps we can have a ruling that all public sector jobs up to, say, £50k are advertised in either local papers or on the web. The more senior level vacancies could then be split between the appropriate newspapers.