Save the BBC – what did your MP say?

“However, I also strongly believe that the BBC can and should be doing more etc” = “Help me, Jeremy, before I have to use my own brain!”

Always nice to see that our MPs can't even put an original form letter together for their constituents.

I agree AI. Sharing these replies is a fantastic idea and makes very interesting reading!

Always reassuring to see MPs having their own opinions…!

There needs to be a way to provide a response back to those many MP's who've come out with stock answers in support of the review, whilst pretending to be supporters of the BBC. Whilst there are some excellent responses from a few of the non-government MP's, particularly noteworthy being that from Graham Jones, Hyndburn, even some of the opposition MP responses demonstrate a level of ignorance, or bandwagon jumping that is quite astounding.

In particular, we need to correct this view that the BBC should be subjected to the same requirement to cut costs as “other publicly funded organisations”, and make it clear that the BBC is not paid for by the government or the taxpayer but by the licence fee which, whilst paid for by the viewing public, is, as such ring-fenced, excellent value for money and they are not making a loss within that framework. Stephen Lloyd (LibDem – Eastbourne) for example says “We are currently experiencing tough economic conditions that mean we all have to tighten our belts more than ever before……and it is only right that the funding of the BBC, as much as it saddens me, is at least reviewed as well.” Why? Where will the savings go? The BBC's costs have no connection whatsoever with our national debt. Even some labour MP's seem to have missed that particular point.

Secondly, we need to get them away from the concept that controversial ouput is a good reason to “tighten control” – this is exactly the sort of censorship that must be avoided at all costs – I can't say it better than Graham Jones does – like him I welcome it even if I sometimes don't like it.

Thirdly, we need to expel this idea that it is right for the public, the government, or any audit commission, to have any input into the salary decisions for managers and artists. As Ian Murray, (labour – Edinburgh South) established in his meeting with the BBC's DG, “the BBC operates in a sphere where competition for talent and the best managers comes with large private sector and independent television salaries.”, and indeed, some of those paying these salaries are the very people from the media circus who are the BBC's biggest critics,with Murdoch as their ringmaster. The BBC may often gain from artists of integrity who are ready to be philanthropic in supporting the institution, but it can't operate viably if it constantly operates as a charity cause. Ultimately, providing it turns a profit, which it does, and it's fees are not exhorbitant, which they're not, it is simply none of our business and has only been made so by these same opponents.
We need to find a way to make these points to those MP's who have not taken them fully on board in their responses, otherwise they will get away with this pretence of “supporting Britain's cultural crown jewel”.
Which brings me on to my final point. We may be highly critical of the party line identically worded responses, but in fairness, as some of the responses have pointed out, our original mail on the subject was also much the same in nature, unless you personalised it with some of your own views – I certainly did. But perhaps more importantly, now is the time to not just accept these stock responses we've received but to reply back to our MP's with a personally compiled letter to draw these, and any other factors of relevance, to their attention. I immediately wrote to my MP, and I sent a copy of my response in to 38 degrees, but importantly, none of my response was duplicated, they were totally my own words and thoughts. Hopefully my points above will provide a checklist for the most relevant issues – I'm sure others will have other valid points that mine omits. But ultimately, difficult as it may be, will have far greater difficulty ignoring our points if they are now bombarded not with duplicated circular letters, but piles of individually composed letters that put them right on these key issues.

Reply from my MP:

Thank you for your e-mail about the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt MP's threats to cut the BBC's licence fee.

I share your concerns and I have written to Jeremy Hunt MP, in the strongest possible terms against cuts to the BBC's licence fee. I shall do everything I can to protect the BBC from any savage cuts proposed by the government.

I shall contact you again when I have received a response to my letter . thank you for raising this important matter with me.

Best wishes

Yours sicnerley

Paul Blomfield MP

Reply from my MP – Richard Bacon – Conservative – South Norfolk.

Dear Mr. Fisher

Thank you for your correspondace regarding the BBC.

I am a strong believer in public service broadcasting and believe that the BBC is both a national asset and a strong cultural export. The Government fully supports the BBC and wants it to remain the cornerstone of UK public service broadcasting. I know that my colleague Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, has described the BBC as a ''huge national crown jewel'' and is committed to sustaining the BBC's position as the nation's standard-setting public service broadcaster.

However, I strongly believe that the BBC can and should be doing more to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. Consequently , the Government will give the National Audit Office (NAO) full access to the BBC's accounts to ensure transparency. You may be aware that I sit on the Public Accounts Committee which scrutinises the reports prepared by the NAO and as a result, I will certainlty monitor this issue closley.

As Jeremy Hunt has also made clear, the Government will be discussing the furture of the BBC funding with the Corporation in detail during the licence fee settlement and BBC Charter Renewal. One of the issue that needs to be addressed is the lack of transparency surrounding pay for top executives and higly paid stars.

I think that in the long term the BBC's governance structures need reforming. The Government is not convinced that, in the long term, the current BBC Trust represents the best model. I believe it would be better for there to be a genuinely independent regulator of the BBC that ensures value for money for the licence fee payers.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

With kind regards,

Richard Bacon MP

Reply from my MP – Ann Coffey – Labour – Stockport.

Dear Ms Dethick,

Many thanks for contacting me about the BBC licence fee. I am extremely supportive of the BBC – I think it is a valuable and irreplaceable national service offering a high quality of independent broadcasting, catering to a hugely varied audience. I would not like to see it undermined in any way.

With regard to the licence fee, I also noted the Culture Secretary's reported remarks, and I will of course look out for the announcement on this by the coalition government, and keep you informed about the exact proposals.

And of course I agree with you that we don't want cuts forced on the BBC. However, you may be interested to know that I've also been contacted by constituents on low incomes who find it hard to afford their TV licence and would like it to be reduced. My own view is that the licence fee is set at a reasonable level, but there is another view that the licence fee hits the poor hardest. In any case, at a time when there is great pressure on budgets, I don't think the BBC can be exempt from looking at value for money.

Your sincerely

Ann Coffey MP

I received two letters from my MP almost identical!!

Dear Russell
please protect OUR bbc and not let the toties break another promise Alan sidaway

It looks like Lib Dems have a party line response too! There also seems to be a lack of understanding of how organisations work and a 'typical politician's idea' that you can impose a budget cut without having any idea of what to cut and how effective it will be. They seem to have no idea about how things like journalism work! A few thoughts:
1. There's no such thing as an 'independent regulator', and didn't the Tories stand on a manifesto of abolishing 'quangos' rather than setting them up? The Committees which carry out these reviews tend to be better paid than the budgets they're aiming to cut.
2. On the Andrew Marr show, Jeremy Hunt mentioned a need for 'competition' (a few Tory MPs have also raised this point). They mention the likes of ITV, which has programmes which easily beat BBC viewer ratings and pay millions to celebrity stars. Of course, they're careful not to mention Sky, which is just as competitive, and actually more expensive. Also, what you ultimately get from Sky is less; as far as I'm aware, they produce fewer of their own programmes and spend massive amounts on importing American culture. We need to defend our own, our programmes produced by the BBC, for which their budget is so important! Who's to say that cutting their budget will cut celebrities' salaries? More likely that the salaries will stay the same, because ultimately people want to see the likes of Jonathan Ross (who isn't even with the BBC anymore, I don't think). And would it even be an issue if it weren't for the hype surrounding the Brand/Ross prank? Tasteless, to be sure, but would have gone unnoticed if it weren't for the printed press. The reality is that the BBC has to keep up with public demand; if the demand is for celebrities, that's what they have to pay for.
3. A few comments about biaised/unbiaised reporting: the reality is, that BBC Newsroom staff are expected to research, validate and write breaking news in about 5 minutes to keep up with their competition. Journalists all around the country are forced to work off the Press Association and PR because of the restrictions imposed by COMPETITION, and the changes brought about when Murdoch broke the Unions and introduced a price war. Cutting the BBC's budget isn't going to improve their news broadcasting; if anything, it'll lower morale and make it worse.

There seems to be a belief that 'the BBC could provide the same service for less money', but that's ultimately an ideological fantasy. It could probably put on a decent show (almost Sky-esque), but ultimately there'll be a noticable difference in quality. It's like Tesco Value vs Tesco Finest (or Sainsbury's Basic vs Taste the Difference, if you prefer): they both get the job done, but which tastes better?

Why is it that if you email an MP they respond by first class post? Surely a free email would be better in these tough times. Rest assured I have recycled my written response after shredding it!

Russel please get involved in saving the BBC from Rupert Murdoch's machinations. Public service broadcasting in the UK is one thing that we should be proud of!

Russel please get involved in saving the BBC from Rupert Murdoch's machinations. Public service broadcasting in the UK is one thing that we should be proud of!