political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Will the BBC Follow Channel 4's Lead?
So, to cope with a more stringent budgetary regime, Channel 4 is getting rid of 25% of its middle managers.
I wonder if the BBC, as part of the public sector, will be following suit.
The BBC's profligacy and chronic left wing bias is beyond redemption and the new coalition must take action without delay to reduce it to its proper role as a Public Service Broadcaster such as is found in Canada - nothing less will do
Parts of the BBC are already committed to 25% cuts in senior managers - Peter Horrocks in Global News, for example. http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.com/2010/03/different-world.html The BBC Trust have set a BBC-wide target of a 20% cut in senior management. The difference at Channel 4, is, I think, speed !
Channel 4, whilst in receipt of public subsidy, is a "commercial" organisation, unlike the BBC. The cuts that are adverted by the BBC Trust are insufficient and do not go deep enough. What is needed at the BBC is a rampaging Panzer Grenadier Division to effect wholesale job cuts across the board, delayering the multiple levels of management and to excise the PC collective, with a multiplicity of commissariat roles, that the BBC suffers from.
A very severe audit, of the spend that has been expended in South Africa on the world Cup coverage is necessary. Far too many people, far too much duplication, if not triplication of resource, and is it really necessary to have all that personnel in S.A.? Equally, the same questions can be levelled at Glasto, which appears to be a jolly for the apparatchiks and every BBC hanger-on.
Once the money is sorted, then you can turn to the endemic political bias.
Read the BBC trust statement carefully. It only refers to SENIOR managers, it does NOT mention middle managers. Of course it is the large number of middle managers where the main cost would be saved. In other words they are not tackling the problem at all.
So if the BBC is proposing to reduce staffing by 25%, is this going to lead to an equivalent reduction in costs - or are we seeing the beginnings of further 'outsourcing' as the BBC likes to call it? In other words, "we'll pay the same people to do the same jobs, but they'll be running their own companies and pulling all the tax wheezes they can. Meanwhile, empty offices - assuming an absence of any form of 'hot-desking' - will be used to store champagne in preparation for the triumphant return of the Labour government".
10 comments:
Not a chance. The BBC need their current staffing levels so as to ensure wall to wall coverage of Glastonbury amongst other minority interests.
*cough*
Some staff have been cut already.
And here's the promise to cut senior managers' pay by 25 per cent
The BBC's profligacy and chronic left wing bias is beyond redemption and the new coalition must take action without delay to reduce it to its proper role as a Public Service Broadcaster such as is found in Canada - nothing less will do
Parts of the BBC are already committed to 25% cuts in senior managers - Peter Horrocks in Global News, for example. http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.com/2010/03/different-world.html
The BBC Trust have set a BBC-wide target of a 20% cut in senior management. The difference at Channel 4, is, I think, speed !
Channel 4, whilst in receipt of public subsidy, is a "commercial" organisation, unlike the BBC.
The cuts that are adverted by the BBC Trust are insufficient and do not go deep enough. What is needed at the BBC is a rampaging Panzer Grenadier Division to effect wholesale job cuts across the board, delayering the multiple levels of management and to excise the PC collective, with a multiplicity of commissariat roles, that the BBC suffers from.
A very severe audit, of the spend that has been expended in South Africa on the world Cup coverage is necessary. Far too many people, far too much duplication, if not triplication of resource, and is it really necessary to have all that personnel in S.A.?
Equally, the same questions can be levelled at Glasto, which appears to be a jolly for the apparatchiks and every BBC hanger-on.
Once the money is sorted, then you can turn to the endemic political bias.
Read the BBC trust statement carefully. It only refers to SENIOR managers, it does NOT mention middle managers. Of course it is the large number of middle managers where the main cost would be saved. In other words they are not tackling the problem at all.
Ignoring their mewling the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party should be lifted gently off the public teat.
What the political right really, really hates is that everyone loves the BBC (except them).
So if the BBC is proposing to reduce staffing by 25%, is this going to lead to an equivalent reduction in costs - or are we seeing the beginnings of further 'outsourcing' as the BBC likes to call it? In other words, "we'll pay the same people to do the same jobs, but they'll be running their own companies and pulling all the tax wheezes they can. Meanwhile, empty offices - assuming an absence of any form of 'hot-desking' - will be used to store champagne in preparation for the triumphant return of the Labour government".
Hmmm... I don't think so... kostume
Post a Comment