BBC bosses draw up plans to win over Reform UK voters
BBC bosses have drawn up plans to win over Reform UK voters, according to editorial meeting minutes.
Minutes from a meeting of the broadcaster's editorial guidelines and standards committee from March show that BBC News CEO Deborah Turness gave a presentation in which she discussed plans to alter "story selection" and "other types of output, such as drama" to win the trust of Reform voters.
The minutes, which were reported by The Byline Times, also show the committee identified "the importance of local BBC teams" to their plan to win over supporters of Nigel Farage.
There is reportedly a belief that the corporation's news and drama output is creating "low trust issues" with Farage backers.
The minutes states: "The CEO, News and Current Affairs provided the Committee with a presentation on plans to address low trust issues with Reform voters.
READ MORE:
"The committee discussed the presentation. Committee members recognised the importance of local BBC teams in the plan, given their closeness to audiences.
"Directors discussed how story selection and other types of output, such as drama, also had a role to play. An update on progress would return to a future meeting."
The committee includes former GB News executive Robbie Gibb, who is also a former director of communications at Number 10 and an outspoken Brexiteer.
Gibb was appointed to the board by former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021.
He was identified by former BBC Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis in 2022 as an 'active agent of the Conservative party'.
Farage has repeatedly used his own GB News platform to attack the BBC, calling it a 'political actor' and threatening to boycott the corporation.
In language also used by the BBC Editorial Committee, the Reform leader suggested that BBC editors were using 'story selection' in order to target his party.
In an incident last year, Farage refused to appear on the BBC until the broadcaster apologised for allowing members of the public to ask him questions during a special episode of Question Time.
READ MORE:
Byline Times said BBC staffers it spoke to are concerned about the plan to win over Reform voters, due to the risk of increasing allegations of bias.
The BBC has previously been criticised by some viewers for heavily featuring Reform UK politicians on its programmes, despite the party only having a handful of MPs.
In July last year, sociology professor Tom Mills – author of The BBC: The Myth of a Public Service – claimed the BBC were giving such a platform to Farage because they are such a big part of a 'political establishment which has drifted to the right'.
'I think the simple answer to why they [the BBC] like Nigel Farage is they are much more comfortable with an anti-establishment figure on the right than the left. It's as simple as that," he said.
'He's on their political spectrum and the political spectrum for the BBC runs from the centrists out to Nigel Farage.
'They still see those guys [like Farage] as being rogue figures of the establishment, but they are just given legitimacy by the fact that there's lots of voices they [the BBC] see to be legitimate in these media organisations which speak from a similar sort of perspective.'
The BBC has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Questions Policy on Palestinian State
The American ambassador to Israel has said that it should be up to 'Muslim countries' to build a Palestinian state on their territory instead of in the areas that much of the world recognizes as Palestinian lands. If the statements by Ambassador Mike Huckabee are confirmed as representing the U.S. administration's position, it would be a sharp shift away from decades of American foreign policy on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. A State Department spokeswoman downplayed his remarks. 'Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land that are controlled by Israel,' Mr. Huckabee said in an videotaped interview with the BBC. 'So maybe, if there is such a desire for the Palestinian state, there would be someone who would say we'd like to host it, we'd like to create it.' The United States has long supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would give Palestinians sovereignty in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. That has been American policy since the United States helped broker the Oslo Accords in 1993, which were widely expected to lead to statehood for the Palestinians, and, for Israel, realization of the long-held goal of land for peace. Mr. Huckabee said in a separate interview with Bloomberg News that it would be a 'problem' if someone wanted to declare those exact territories a future Palestinian state. Bloomberg quoted him as saying in off-camera remarks 'I don't think so' when asked whether the Trump administration supported a two-state solution as ongoing American policy. 'I know that many American administrations and other European countries have pushed for it. But the question is: Where should that be?' he told the BBC. Both interviews were published on Tuesday but it was not clear precisely when they had taken place. Asked about Mr. Huckabee's remarks, a State Department spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce, told reporters, 'I think he certainly speaks for himself,' and added: 'When it comes to American policy and certainly where the president stands, I'd suggest you call the White House.' At least 146 of the world's 193 countries, plus the Holy See, support statehood for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Although none of the so-called Group of 7 industrialized countries currently recognize a Palestinian state, France and Britain have recently been discussing steps toward doing so. Next week, President Emmanuel Macron of France will jointly chair a U.N. conference in New York with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia to explore the creation of a Palestinian state. Before he became ambassador this year, Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and Southern Baptist minister, had said that 'there's really no such thing as a Palestinian' and argued that all of the occupied West Bank belonged to Israel. But last fall, Mr. Huckabee said he would 'carry out the policy of the president' while serving as the top American diplomat to Israel. 'I won't make the policy,' he said in November.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Britain's pensions mess won't be resolved by the latest stab at reform
It's the absence of ambition that really gets me. Labour may be trailing badly in the polls, yet there are still four years to go before the Prime Minister has to call another election, and for the time being he commands the sort of majority that would normally allow him to do truly radical things. But he doesn't. Instead, ministers sit on their hands, seemingly frightened of their own shadows, and allow Reform UK, with just a handful of MPs, to make all the running. Nigel Farage is probably right to claim that without Reform snapping at its heels, the Government would not have about-turned on the winter fuel allowance. Yet it is not just on entitlement spending that the Government appears incapable of doing anything of significance. On wider pension reform too, there's little sign of the resolve needed for meaningful change. The Government's Pension Schemes Bill – published last week – is more notable for what it doesn't do than the changes it seeks to bring about. This may seem a little unfair. There are few areas of public policy where the old joke that 'you wouldn't start from here' more aptly applies than pensions. Decades of meddling has left the UK with a hopelessly confused array of different pension arrangements that collectively fail to serve the country as they should. It is also fair to say that there is no silver bullet likely to deliver optimum outcomes. Let's take gold-plated, final-salary public sector pensions, widely thought to be unfair on the great hinterland of taxpayers who don't enjoy such perks but are required to underwrite them. These are left completely unaffected by the new pensions legislation. Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, said last week that the party would consider moving all public sector employees out of their 'Rolls-Royce' defined benefit pension plans and into the defined contribution schemes common to much of the private sector. Sadly, this is much easier said than done, which is why successive governments have – beyond trimming benefits a little – steered clear of significant reform. Putting public sector workers on the same basis as those in the private sector might sound fair enough in principle, but it would be hugely challenging in practice, and not just because unions would throw their toys out of the pram at the mere whiff of it. Public sector pensions have been compared to a Ponzi scheme, in that retirees are paid from the contributions of those still in employment. But actually the two things are quite different. In a Ponzi scheme, the existing investor doesn't know that their promised return is being paid not from investment gains but from funds collected from new investors. The arrangement is therefore fraudulent. But with public sector pensions the process is completely transparent. What's more, these pay-as-you-go arrangements conform much more exactly with the founding principle of occupational pensions than the defined contribution model – namely that the employee pays for the retirement income of his predecessor rather than saving for his own pension. Go back to the origins of the modern-day pension, and in some professions the individual job would be sold by the incumbent to the new entrant as a way of funding retirement. Alternatively, the newcomer would agree to pay his predecessor a proportion of his income for a set number of years. If you were lucky, the old codger would quickly pop his clogs. These days, workers can expect to live 20 years or more in retirement, making the arithmetic of pay-as-you-go pension arrangements much more challenging. The last set of 'Whole of Government Accounts' showed the total present value of public sector pension liabilities at a jaw-dropping £1.415 trillion. This was down from £2.639 trillion the year before, a fall accounted for largely by the fact that owing to higher interest rates many local authority pension schemes have swung into surplus. For unfunded public sector pensions, however, there is still a massive and rising liability. If this had to be paid all in one go, it would pretty much bankrupt the country. Yet in practice, it is spread out over decades, and ought therefore to be manageable assuming contributions are raised in line with outgoings. The more important number is perhaps therefore the difference between what employees and employers are paying into their schemes and what is being paid out in retirement benefits. This has been in negative territory for some years now – more money going out than in – making public sector pensions a net cost to the taxpayer. The shortfall is expected to be around £1.6bn for last financial year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a swing back into surplus from here on in, reaching a net positive of £3.6bn by 2030. Where it heads after that is anyone's guess. If the Government succeeds in cutting the public sector headcount, it may well turn significantly negative again. But the point is that this is hardly an emergency for the public finances. If on the other hand all public sector workers were put, as Tice suggests, on defined contribution arrangements – where contributions are invested into a personal pension pot – it would quickly become one, as there would be no money coming in to fund those already in retirement. Taxes would have to rise significantly in the short to medium term to fund the gap. Furthermore, to properly compensate public sector employees for giving up their present, very favourable pension arrangements, you would need significantly to increase their pay, further adding to the travails of the public finances. As on much else, Reform doesn't seem to have thought things through. Best, perhaps, not to poke that particular hornets' nest. Of course, the Government's Pensions Schemes Bill doesn't touch on these concerns. Rather it is about private sector pensions, and in particular it is about attempting to get them to invest more in productive UK assets, forcibly if necessary. Personally, I see nothing particularly wrong with this objective provided it is not pushed to extremes. The UK is almost unique in how little its pension funds invest in home-grown equities and infrastructure, and indeed in the lack of coercion currently applied. Given the tax breaks this form of saving enjoys, it's reasonable to expect investors to give something back. But there is also a good reason why trustees are as reluctant as they are; it is because relative to the alternatives, the returns on British assets are low. It's chicken and egg, and perfectly explains why the London Stock Market is dying on its feet. It's not lack of a big stick; it's lack of opportunity. Breaking this vicious circle of decline requires not Labour's go-to solution for all challenges of this sort – strong-arming investors into doing what they don't want to do – but making the UK an attractive place to invest. Much work to be done on that front, I fear. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UK government hopes to regain political initiative as Treasury chief outlines spending plans
LONDON (AP) — Britain's Labour government hopes to regain the political initiative Wednesday when Treasury chief Rachel Reeves sets out her spending plans for the coming years, with big increases expected for health, defense and housing. Reeves, who has been blamed by many for Labour's decline in popularity since it returned to power after 14 years in July, will outline the government's spending and investment priorities for lawmakers. There will be no tax announcements. Reeves is expected to argue the government is on the path to 'renewing Britain' but that 'too many people in too many parts of the country are yet to feel it,' according to remarks issued by the Treasury. 'This government's task — my task — and the purpose of this spending review is to change that, to ensure that renewal is felt in people's everyday lives, their jobs, their communities," she is expected to tell lawmakers. Labour won a landslide victory last year on a slogan of 'change' and voter anger at the Conservative administration in power at the time, but its vote share was historically low for a winning party at 35%. In the months since, Labour has been overtaken in opinion polls by the anti-immigration and recently formed Reform UK. Reeves has been blamed by many for Labour's struggles, not least her decision in July to withdraw a winter fuel subsidy to all but the poorest retirees. The outcry, which contributed to Labour's poor performance in recent local elections, prompted Reeves to about-turn and raise the threshold at which retirees will get the subsidy. She and Prime Minister Keir Starmer will hope the change will stem the anger and focus voters on other issues, such as its spending priorities. Among the main announcements is expected to be a 30 billion-pound ($41 billion) increase in funding for Britain's cherished but struggling National Health Service, as well as a rise in defense spending that will account for 2.5% of national output by 2027. Billions more are expected for social housing as the government aims to meet its target of building 1.5 million new homes by the next election. However, some departments are set to lose out after accounting for inflation, including local government, the justice system and the Home Office. Reeves has insisted she won't go on a big splurge, arguing that all her spending plans will meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. After raising taxes on business in her first budget last October, Reeves will find it difficult to swell the Treasury's coffers further in coming years as Labour won the election on a promise it would not increase income or sales taxes. And with the British economy still growing at historically low levels, the tax take is not expected to get a big lift. Reeves will hope her investment plans can help change that.
