<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Slimming the BBC would be so easy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/</link>
	<description>Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today&#039;s issues and tomorrow&#039;s problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:18:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: mikestallard</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7621</link>
		<dc:creator>mikestallard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7621</guid>
		<description>&quot;Edgy&quot; is a weasel word. 
If you mean &quot;obscene&quot; why not come right out with it? 
I do not hear on the BBC any real discussion of the following: tax cutting done sensibly; the relationship between public and private pensions and pay; the scandal of the Clinton administration giving out orders for the poor to be given mortgages against a background of legal sanctions on the banks; what exactly the Police think they are doing at the moment; why parliament is only sitting for just over 100 days next year; and, the Great Unmentionable (Common market/EU). 
I get all this stuff, myself, from the internet. 
Now that is indeed on the edge - edgy! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Edgy&quot; is a weasel word.<br />
If you mean &quot;obscene&quot; why not come right out with it?<br />
I do not hear on the BBC any real discussion of the following: tax cutting done sensibly; the relationship between public and private pensions and pay; the scandal of the Clinton administration giving out orders for the poor to be given mortgages against a background of legal sanctions on the banks; what exactly the Police think they are doing at the moment; why parliament is only sitting for just over 100 days next year; and, the Great Unmentionable (Common market/EU).<br />
I get all this stuff, myself, from the internet.<br />
Now that is indeed on the edge &#8211; edgy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Puddlecote</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7622</link>
		<dc:creator>Dick Puddlecote</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7622</guid>
		<description>&quot;It is unbiased news - that would be good, but is clearly not what the BBC delivers, as it nearly always delivers news from the standpoint of someone who thinks more government is the answer and never the problem.&quot;

Well said John, and as Johnny Norfolk mentions above re: BBC left wing bias.

The size of the BBC is always going to cause a problem, and rather like &#039;The Westminster Village&#039; effect where the outside world sometimes seems like a different world entirely to those within, BBC staff seem to have been sucked into a bubble of self-perpetuating political correctness which has ended up with the organisation veering increasingly to the left.

As the BBC doesn&#039;t have to fight for funding with anyone but the Government, it is only the Government of the day that they need to truly please.

If at least a proportion of the BBC&#039;s funding had to be earned by producing programmes that accurately reflect the public&#039;s concerns and not exclusively the Government&#039;s, then perhaps the BBC would return a bit more to the unbiased centre where they are supposed to be.

The litmus test of how the BBC has changed for the worse in recent years is Panorama. Once a hard-hitting and often controversial investigative show, it is now just limp, pallid and lightweight, only investigating stories that will confirm the Government&#039;s current line on any particular subject.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It is unbiased news &#8211; that would be good, but is clearly not what the BBC delivers, as it nearly always delivers news from the standpoint of someone who thinks more government is the answer and never the problem.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well said John, and as Johnny Norfolk mentions above re: BBC left wing bias.</p>
<p>The size of the BBC is always going to cause a problem, and rather like &#8216;The Westminster Village&#8217; effect where the outside world sometimes seems like a different world entirely to those within, BBC staff seem to have been sucked into a bubble of self-perpetuating political correctness which has ended up with the organisation veering increasingly to the left.</p>
<p>As the BBC doesn&#8217;t have to fight for funding with anyone but the Government, it is only the Government of the day that they need to truly please.</p>
<p>If at least a proportion of the BBC&#8217;s funding had to be earned by producing programmes that accurately reflect the public&#8217;s concerns and not exclusively the Government&#8217;s, then perhaps the BBC would return a bit more to the unbiased centre where they are supposed to be.</p>
<p>The litmus test of how the BBC has changed for the worse in recent years is Panorama. Once a hard-hitting and often controversial investigative show, it is now just limp, pallid and lightweight, only investigating stories that will confirm the Government&#8217;s current line on any particular subject.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adam</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7620</link>
		<dc:creator>adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:11:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7620</guid>
		<description>Well today for example BBC 1 is running its usual lineup. Homes Under the Hammer, Bargin Hunt and similar programmes. 
I have watched Bargin Hunt, the shows budget seems to be about &#163;100 an episode and most of the contestants lose money. Mostly pointless and i cant see why its public service broadcasting. 
BBC 2 runs childrens television all morning and not long after it finishes for the Daily Politics and a dumbed down Working Lunch, BBC 1 takes up the bat with yet more childrens tv. Isnt Cbeebies a dedicated childrens tv channel, cant kids watch that? 
It seems to me the BBCs daytime public service is to fill the airwaves with childrens television and antique/house hunting or refurb. programmes. 
 
The BBC produces one show on Europe outside of a general Europe wide news roundup on the world service. However it is hidden away at 3.30 am on BBC News/Parliament channels almost as if they would rather people didnt watch it. So, by the way, is the very good Hard Talk and Straight Talk with Andrew Neil, meanwhile pap like The One Show and Eggheads recieve primetime slots. 
 
Where are the political programmes educating people on the EU or just their European neighbours? 
 
When was the last time there was a really good series on British history, or indeed history in general. There are many millions of migrants in Britain, and native Brits, who have little knowledge of UK history, they would particularly benefit for example. 
 
The BBC does produce great documentaries, one of my favourites is A Picture of Britain, but they are frequently relegated only to a specialist channel, BBC 4, unlike the childrens tv. 
Also once shown they are remiss to repeat them again, perhaps because they would rather sell the DVDs on Amazon. It seems a waste not to repeat excellent documentaries. 
 
Channel 4 at least make an effort. In the morning they run programmes about teenage issues, job hunting and career advice as well as documentaries, good ones recently included a history of British castles and another on medieval weaponary. 
I also like Unreported World which is given a primetime evening slot. I am sure if the BBC were involved it would be buried away at 2 am on BBC news. 
 
During the recent Manuelgate affair the 800k DG was on holiday, the 500k deputy had gone missing, possibly on holiday too and the head of operations, supposedly in charge, as far as i can tell was a no show. I dont recall seeing her in the media. 
 
Just a few ideas and complaints. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well today for example BBC 1 is running its usual lineup. Homes Under the Hammer, Bargin Hunt and similar programmes.<br />
I have watched Bargin Hunt, the shows budget seems to be about &pound;100 an episode and most of the contestants lose money. Mostly pointless and i cant see why its public service broadcasting.<br />
BBC 2 runs childrens television all morning and not long after it finishes for the Daily Politics and a dumbed down Working Lunch, BBC 1 takes up the bat with yet more childrens tv. Isnt Cbeebies a dedicated childrens tv channel, cant kids watch that?<br />
It seems to me the BBCs daytime public service is to fill the airwaves with childrens television and antique/house hunting or refurb. programmes. </p>
<p>The BBC produces one show on Europe outside of a general Europe wide news roundup on the world service. However it is hidden away at 3.30 am on BBC News/Parliament channels almost as if they would rather people didnt watch it. So, by the way, is the very good Hard Talk and Straight Talk with Andrew Neil, meanwhile pap like The One Show and Eggheads recieve primetime slots. </p>
<p>Where are the political programmes educating people on the EU or just their European neighbours? </p>
<p>When was the last time there was a really good series on British history, or indeed history in general. There are many millions of migrants in Britain, and native Brits, who have little knowledge of UK history, they would particularly benefit for example. </p>
<p>The BBC does produce great documentaries, one of my favourites is A Picture of Britain, but they are frequently relegated only to a specialist channel, BBC 4, unlike the childrens tv.<br />
Also once shown they are remiss to repeat them again, perhaps because they would rather sell the DVDs on Amazon. It seems a waste not to repeat excellent documentaries. </p>
<p>Channel 4 at least make an effort. In the morning they run programmes about teenage issues, job hunting and career advice as well as documentaries, good ones recently included a history of British castles and another on medieval weaponary.<br />
I also like Unreported World which is given a primetime evening slot. I am sure if the BBC were involved it would be buried away at 2 am on BBC news. </p>
<p>During the recent Manuelgate affair the 800k DG was on holiday, the 500k deputy had gone missing, possibly on holiday too and the head of operations, supposedly in charge, as far as i can tell was a no show. I dont recall seeing her in the media. </p>
<p>Just a few ideas and complaints.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jabba the Cat</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7619</link>
		<dc:creator>Jabba the Cat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 02:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7619</guid>
		<description>Put the tv side of the BBC as a pay to view/subscription service, after all if it is as brilliant as everyone claims then there will be a queue of people lined up to buy viewing cards. 
 
Run the domestic radio stations as commercial services, but retain the world service as a tax funded entity like eg. VOA. 
 
The essential part is giving the citizen choice, and doing away with the compulsory broadcast taxation. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Put the tv side of the BBC as a pay to view/subscription service, after all if it is as brilliant as everyone claims then there will be a queue of people lined up to buy viewing cards. </p>
<p>Run the domestic radio stations as commercial services, but retain the world service as a tax funded entity like eg. VOA. </p>
<p>The essential part is giving the citizen choice, and doing away with the compulsory broadcast taxation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael W</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7618</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 02:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7618</guid>
		<description>It is outdated to be paying a levy on what is now a commonplace household device which has many uses apart from viewing BBC programmes. 
 
It seems wrong that the public should be subsidising the BBC to compete so broadly with commercial networks. 
 
I&#039;d propose retaining the BBC Newsgathering operation (still I believe the biggest such in the world) paid for by an independent fund established from taxes, sale of BBC properties and from income from existing BBC rights. The licence fee would be abolished. The new BBC would produce and sell news stories, analysis and suchlike, and be free to access in the UK. 
 
The BBC World Service might be funded from the same source, or as now by grant to the Foreign Office - in any case this service needs bolstering up, I think. 
 
I suspect an attempt to redesign BBC management would result in a swarm of management consultants collecting huge fees and achieving little long-term benefit. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is outdated to be paying a levy on what is now a commonplace household device which has many uses apart from viewing BBC programmes. </p>
<p>It seems wrong that the public should be subsidising the BBC to compete so broadly with commercial networks. </p>
<p>I&#039;d propose retaining the BBC Newsgathering operation (still I believe the biggest such in the world) paid for by an independent fund established from taxes, sale of BBC properties and from income from existing BBC rights. The licence fee would be abolished. The new BBC would produce and sell news stories, analysis and suchlike, and be free to access in the UK. </p>
<p>The BBC World Service might be funded from the same source, or as now by grant to the Foreign Office &#8211; in any case this service needs bolstering up, I think. </p>
<p>I suspect an attempt to redesign BBC management would result in a swarm of management consultants collecting huge fees and achieving little long-term benefit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter North</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7616</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter North</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7616</guid>
		<description>The common argument I here is that the arts would die without the bbc.  We have sky arts and &quot;4 later&quot; was always better than the bbc.  You can build in public service remit into lisencing for commercial stations and you do not need a megalithic tax funded corporate to do it.  BBC news is diabolical, shallow trash and is obsessed with politicians over policy just like any other news vessel so if we are not getting better or different we have no need or desire to subsidise it. 
 
Furthermore, what I need to hear from tories is how you will make my life cheaper.  Yesterday the telegraph ran with a sotry that the tories would cut the TV tax by &#163;6.  Whoopie do!  Try &#163;56. 
 
We are not impressed with your fiddling round the edges and unless the tories can make me several hundred pound better off by deregulating and slashing income tax, there is no way Im going to bother voting. 
 
I&#039;m struggling to fix problems with my house, I have debt problems and I have nothing left over to save.  You and you alone have the power to make me better off.  Presently, the inland revenue takes &#163;1000 a month from my household income by force under threat of jail. 
 
Are the tories going to slash spending and cut our taxes so that we may keep our wealth?  these miserable little numbers you throw about and mealy mouthed mutterings about tax credits and sharing the proceeds of growth.  You are offering nothing different to the status quo. 
 
What is worse is your committee and departmental meetings are nothing but chari shuffling and Ive watched you all on BBC parliament and you never talk about how we&#039;re going to keep the lights on or how you&#039;re going to let us keep our wealth.  You have no impact on our lives except for making us poorer. 
 
And that is why we hate you and that is why I&#039;m not bothering to vote. 
 
To quote Nicholas Winterton...  Political parties have, in addition, contributed to the emasculation of the House through the candidate selection process in seeking only safe, amenable and malleable candidates who will do the Party&#039;s bidding on all occasions and frequently without question, whatever their own views might be. 
 
They must all be &quot;on message&quot;. Individuals with a mind of their own, strong views, a real experience of life and with independent leaning are not welcome. Party officials and whips describe them as the &quot;awkward squad&quot;, but thank goodness there are still a few who have slipped through the net and who enliven the House from time to time. 
 
You are all beyond the pale and we have nothing left but contempt for you all.  Unless you take the power back from the EU you will remain irrelevant and powerless. 
 
You are are protected in the westminster bubble with privelage and monies, guarded by armed police and thats why we cant reach you to do to you that which you deserve. 
 
You will remain in an impenetrable bubble protected from everyday realities and hardships we all face daily, surrounded by your wannabes and yes men while the economy is going to hell, society is breaking down and we no longer have influence on how we are governed. 
 
We face the real possibility of power cuts, public sector strikes and increasing fuel poverty and the political classes are only interested in managing themselves and channelling funds to their cronies to build white elephant windfarms or databases. 
 
You have outlived your usefulness and when the bread runs out and the circus skips town, we will come for you... 
 
Stop pandering to the media and come up with some policies that actually matter.  Give us our money back and let us be the agent of change in our lives because your &quot;government&quot; is incapable fo doing it for us no matter how much money you force form us, no matter how big it gets or whether the PM wears a red hat or a blue one.  (Rest of rant left out) </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The common argument I here is that the arts would die without the bbc.  We have sky arts and &quot;4 later&quot; was always better than the bbc.  You can build in public service remit into lisencing for commercial stations and you do not need a megalithic tax funded corporate to do it.  BBC news is diabolical, shallow trash and is obsessed with politicians over policy just like any other news vessel so if we are not getting better or different we have no need or desire to subsidise it. </p>
<p>Furthermore, what I need to hear from tories is how you will make my life cheaper.  Yesterday the telegraph ran with a sotry that the tories would cut the TV tax by &pound;6.  Whoopie do!  Try &pound;56. </p>
<p>We are not impressed with your fiddling round the edges and unless the tories can make me several hundred pound better off by deregulating and slashing income tax, there is no way Im going to bother voting. </p>
<p>I&#039;m struggling to fix problems with my house, I have debt problems and I have nothing left over to save.  You and you alone have the power to make me better off.  Presently, the inland revenue takes &pound;1000 a month from my household income by force under threat of jail. </p>
<p>Are the tories going to slash spending and cut our taxes so that we may keep our wealth?  these miserable little numbers you throw about and mealy mouthed mutterings about tax credits and sharing the proceeds of growth.  You are offering nothing different to the status quo. </p>
<p>What is worse is your committee and departmental meetings are nothing but chari shuffling and Ive watched you all on BBC parliament and you never talk about how we&#039;re going to keep the lights on or how you&#039;re going to let us keep our wealth.  You have no impact on our lives except for making us poorer. </p>
<p>And that is why we hate you and that is why I&#039;m not bothering to vote. </p>
<p>To quote Nicholas Winterton&#8230;  Political parties have, in addition, contributed to the emasculation of the House through the candidate selection process in seeking only safe, amenable and malleable candidates who will do the Party&#039;s bidding on all occasions and frequently without question, whatever their own views might be. </p>
<p>They must all be &quot;on message&quot;. Individuals with a mind of their own, strong views, a real experience of life and with independent leaning are not welcome. Party officials and whips describe them as the &quot;awkward squad&quot;, but thank goodness there are still a few who have slipped through the net and who enliven the House from time to time. </p>
<p>You are all beyond the pale and we have nothing left but contempt for you all.  Unless you take the power back from the EU you will remain irrelevant and powerless. </p>
<p>You are are protected in the westminster bubble with privelage and monies, guarded by armed police and thats why we cant reach you to do to you that which you deserve. </p>
<p>You will remain in an impenetrable bubble protected from everyday realities and hardships we all face daily, surrounded by your wannabes and yes men while the economy is going to hell, society is breaking down and we no longer have influence on how we are governed. </p>
<p>We face the real possibility of power cuts, public sector strikes and increasing fuel poverty and the political classes are only interested in managing themselves and channelling funds to their cronies to build white elephant windfarms or databases. </p>
<p>You have outlived your usefulness and when the bread runs out and the circus skips town, we will come for you&#8230; </p>
<p>Stop pandering to the media and come up with some policies that actually matter.  Give us our money back and let us be the agent of change in our lives because your &quot;government&quot; is incapable fo doing it for us no matter how much money you force form us, no matter how big it gets or whether the PM wears a red hat or a blue one.  (Rest of rant left out)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnny Norfolk</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7617</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnny Norfolk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7617</guid>
		<description>The set up of the BBC is well past its sell by date. 
 Every chanel should be by subscription, so you pay for what you want. 
 You could also pay per view, if that was the case just see how the BBC would change if it had to please its viewers. 
 Lets put the people in a position that reduces revenue to the BBC if they are putting on what is not wanted and increases revenue if they put on things that are. 
 
Its the left wing bias that does me in. They should not be allowed to get away with it. 
 
The ammount of self advertising the BBC does in between programes may as well be paid adverts as they are both just as iritating. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The set up of the BBC is well past its sell by date.<br />
 Every chanel should be by subscription, so you pay for what you want.<br />
 You could also pay per view, if that was the case just see how the BBC would change if it had to please its viewers.<br />
 Lets put the people in a position that reduces revenue to the BBC if they are putting on what is not wanted and increases revenue if they put on things that are. </p>
<p>Its the left wing bias that does me in. They should not be allowed to get away with it. </p>
<p>The ammount of self advertising the BBC does in between programes may as well be paid adverts as they are both just as iritating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7615</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7615</guid>
		<description>Arts and drama were originally paid for by the audience- I see no reason why that should be different today, hence I see no reason for public subsidy (classic FM does fine even with competition from Radio 3, and without competition from a free source I would expect such programs to be available on commercial television) Indeed the present purpose of public servce art and drama programs is to produce programs that no-one would pay for- why on earth do we want to do this, especially when there are so many things that people would be prepared to pay for that can&#039;t be afforded. 
Documentaries always convey an opinion, the BBCs always reflect the &quot;departmental view&quot;, hence with the present system the public is only presented with one world view. This prevents new ideas being properly considered and perpetuates the currency of other ideas. I am convinced that no one organisation can avoid this in its own output, whatever rules are laid down, and however hard and honestly they try- its a bit like having a court system with just a judge, no jury and no councel- however wise and honest the judge the verdict will not be impartial because he only hears the evidence he calls for and is a slave to his own world view- whatever that is. 
It should be noted that the majority of BBC documentary and arts/drama output is made in partnership with other organisations now so I see no difficulty in getting good programs made. 
News is of course in exactly the same position as documentaries are. 
I would recommend that we continue with public service broadcasting on an entirely different basis. Have a number (say three) public service broadcasting contracts each awarded to a different operator, and to the lowest tenderer. every couple of years re-tender the station with the lowest viewing figures. That way you have three different &quot;departmental views&quot; competing for attention and between them we get a balanced view. As a bonus, &quot;Edgy&quot; comedy will only appear if there is in fact a public appetite for it, and not simply because some intellectual thinks there is. It seems possible that the bill, which would be paid out of general taxation to reduce the cost of collection, might be smaller as well. 
I can hear various people complaining that this is &quot;populist&quot;- so is democracy, do they want to abolish that? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arts and drama were originally paid for by the audience- I see no reason why that should be different today, hence I see no reason for public subsidy (classic FM does fine even with competition from Radio 3, and without competition from a free source I would expect such programs to be available on commercial television) Indeed the present purpose of public servce art and drama programs is to produce programs that no-one would pay for- why on earth do we want to do this, especially when there are so many things that people would be prepared to pay for that can&#039;t be afforded.<br />
Documentaries always convey an opinion, the BBCs always reflect the &quot;departmental view&quot;, hence with the present system the public is only presented with one world view. This prevents new ideas being properly considered and perpetuates the currency of other ideas. I am convinced that no one organisation can avoid this in its own output, whatever rules are laid down, and however hard and honestly they try- its a bit like having a court system with just a judge, no jury and no councel- however wise and honest the judge the verdict will not be impartial because he only hears the evidence he calls for and is a slave to his own world view- whatever that is.<br />
It should be noted that the majority of BBC documentary and arts/drama output is made in partnership with other organisations now so I see no difficulty in getting good programs made.<br />
News is of course in exactly the same position as documentaries are.<br />
I would recommend that we continue with public service broadcasting on an entirely different basis. Have a number (say three) public service broadcasting contracts each awarded to a different operator, and to the lowest tenderer. every couple of years re-tender the station with the lowest viewing figures. That way you have three different &quot;departmental views&quot; competing for attention and between them we get a balanced view. As a bonus, &quot;Edgy&quot; comedy will only appear if there is in fact a public appetite for it, and not simply because some intellectual thinks there is. It seems possible that the bill, which would be paid out of general taxation to reduce the cost of collection, might be smaller as well.<br />
I can hear various people complaining that this is &quot;populist&quot;- so is democracy, do they want to abolish that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alan</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7614</link>
		<dc:creator>alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7614</guid>
		<description>Dear Mr Redwood. 
 
Thank you for this excellent article. Having read the Sunday Telegraph about the Tories plan to prune the Licence Fee I was delighted. 
 
Then I watched the Andrew Marr programme and heard the Director General say, in relation to the Sunday Telegraph story, that he had been contacted last evening by a member of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet and assured that the story was not conservative party policy. 
 
I despair that the leadership of the party cannot see how this, if it was policy, would be welcomed by every home in the land. A golden opportunity indeed. However I am now concerned that the leadership is out of touch with the people and wonder if they have any tax reducing policies at all! 
 
Good luck to you. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Mr Redwood. </p>
<p>Thank you for this excellent article. Having read the Sunday Telegraph about the Tories plan to prune the Licence Fee I was delighted. </p>
<p>Then I watched the Andrew Marr programme and heard the Director General say, in relation to the Sunday Telegraph story, that he had been contacted last evening by a member of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet and assured that the story was not conservative party policy. </p>
<p>I despair that the leadership of the party cannot see how this, if it was policy, would be welcomed by every home in the land. A golden opportunity indeed. However I am now concerned that the leadership is out of touch with the people and wonder if they have any tax reducing policies at all! </p>
<p>Good luck to you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steves</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/11/02/slimming-the-bbc-would-be-so-easy/#comment-7613</link>
		<dc:creator>steves</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=1965#comment-7613</guid>
		<description>the only debate is should the state be paying for public service broadcasting at all 
if so then a pot should be created for all to dip into if they qualify (my vote is no let the market provide the niches required) 
 
on the larger point trim the bbc to just under 1 employee and sack the rest </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the only debate is should the state be paying for public service broadcasting at all<br />
if so then a pot should be created for all to dip into if they qualify (my vote is no let the market provide the niches required) </p>
<p>on the larger point trim the bbc to just under 1 employee and sack the rest</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

