Words not bombs

 

The cuts in the BBC World Service are mean and stupid. In July last year I gave the Foreign Secretary some golden advice. He was not appreciative.

 Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Now that Hezbollah, the Taliban and Iran are all expanding their broadcast services, would it not be inconceivable to cut the meagre grant in aid to the BBC World Service, which could lead to the cancellation of a new Urdu service in Pakistan? Is not the World Service independent, authoritative, trusted, respected and a far better way of winning hearts and minds than bombs and bullets?

Mr Hague: I agree with much of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I would not say that the grant is meagre-£229 million of taxpayers' money. I do not know what he calls meagre, but it is a little more than meagre. It is important that the BBC World Service is able to maintain a presence around the world. I often think of its crucial role in our soft power, which is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. That is not to say, however, that that grant can never be varied or that the service can never make efficiencies. There will, of course, be great pressure across the whole of the public sector for that to happen.

This morning I spoke to three members of the Macedonian Parliament. Their country is small with a population of 2 million. Another country Greece claims its name. They all expressed regret that the most trusted source of international news in their other tongue will close down.  

These cuts are cheese paring by politicians who cheerfully spend £4 billion a year on the futile Afghan war and £100s of millions on palatial embassies including a generous flow of champagne at their receptions.

The World Service greatly serves our mission to spread our principles and values throughout the world. It was PM Thatchers foolish decision not to expand the radio service into a world television one before CNN did. It could have been done for £14 million,  the cost of the cleaning of the Victoria Tower of the House of Lords. I did mention it to her at the time. She refused pump priming money and insisting that the service should be self funding. 

 

This cut is madness.

 

Comments

[Kay Tie]

This cut is indeed madness. But that's the "bleeding stumps" approach that the managers were always going to get up to.

There is so much fat to cut at the BBC it's almost laughable, and yet instead of cutting into bloated management and luxurious waste, instead they pick on high profile stuff that damages the third world. It's despicably cynical.

Very much the theme of this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/8279662/The-front-line-has-become-the-firing-line.html

It includes examples of axing front-line services yet keeping art projects, council vanity projects and other soft spending.

[patrick]

It's interesting that while bus services are ceasing, public toilets and libraries are closing (to name but three) there is no mention that the council chief exec's are to be given a realistic wage.

I would have thought an MPS salary of around 65K would be adequate in these times of cuts.

Instead we hear of anything up to 250K just to run a local authority.

At a time when services are being cut across the board local councils still see fit to pay an individual over 200K of vital public money.

What a disgrace!

[Kay Tie]

"Instead we hear of anything up to 250K just to run a local authority."

Ha! And the rest!

"What a disgrace!"

Indeed, yet all we here from Labour is that it must be "spend as usual." Pathetic.

[David Thomas Williams]

Paul,am I right in assuming the BBC could cut in other areas if they wish to preserve the World Service?