BBC bosses in talks about how to win over Reform-voting viewers
BBC bosses are holding talks about how to win over Reform-voting viewers amid fears their views are under-represented by the broadcaster.
Senior executives including director-general Tim Davie and chairman Samir Shah have discussed plans to overhaul the BBC's news and drama output to tackle 'low-trust issues' among Reform voters.
At a meeting of the corporation's editorial guidelines and standards committee in March, Deborah Turness, BBC News boss, gave a presentation on how to ensure the views of Reform voters were being given enough airtime.
Changes under consideration included altering which news stories the broadcaster covers, as well as potential changes to how it commissions other forms of programming including drama.
The committee, which counts former GB News adviser Sir Robbie Gibb as a member, also discussed the importance of local BBC teams.
The BBC is understood to be keen to ensure it represents all audiences and their concerns, suggesting the broadcaster may look to boost its coverage of issues such as immigration.
Insiders said there was also a focus on making sure that all viewers, experiences and backgrounds are portrayed on screen in entertainment shows.
The committee is expected to update on its progress in luring Reform voters at a future meeting.
Minutes from the meeting, first reported by Byline Times, stated: 'The CEO, News and Current Affairs provided the Committee with a presentation on plans to address low-trust issues with Reform voters.
'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.'
It comes amid concerns that an increasing number of Reform-voting viewers are switching off from the BBC.
A recent YouGov poll found that Reform voters have significantly less trust in institutions than supporters of other parties.
Question Time's most-used guest
Just 13pc of Reform voters said they had a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the BBC, well below the average of 42pc. In contrast, 55pc of Reform supporters said they trusted GB News, which counts Nigel Farage as a presenter.
Mr Farage has repeatedly attacked the BBC, describing it as 'institutionally biased' and 'out-of-touch'. In a manifesto last year, he vowed to scrap the licence fee should his party be elected.
Despite this, he has been a regular contributor to the broadcaster. The Reform leader made his 38th appearance on Question Time at the end of last year, making him the show's most regular living guest. Only Charles Kennedy, the former Lib Dem leader, appeared on the programme more times.
The shake-up comes at a turbulent time for Reform, which has seen its popularity surge in recent months and is now ahead of both the Labour and Conservative parties in polling.
Over the weekend, Zia Yusuf announced he was returning as party chairman just two days after he quit in spectacular fashion. He insisted his decision to step down had been 'born of exhaustion'.
The BBC has previously sought the view of audiences on what it should be covering. During last year's election it launched a feedback campaign dubbed 'Your Voice, Your Vote', which led to it covering stories such as electricity pylons and rural bus services.
The discussions come as BBC bosses are locked in negotiations with ministers over the future of the licence fee funding model, which is up for debate ahead of the end of the current Charter period in 2027.
A BBC spokesman said: 'Our Royal Charter requires us to reflect and represent all the communities of the UK, and our Editorial Guidelines require that we must take account of the different political parties with electoral support across the UK to achieve due impartiality.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
37 minutes ago
- The Sun
Nigel Farage says Brits have ‘every right to be angry' about cost of hotels for migrants
BRITS struggling to live have 'every right to be angry' about illegal migrants getting cushy hotel rooms, Nigel Farage said yesterday. The Reform leader hailed The Sun's front page for laying bare the crippling cost of asylum accommodation. 1 We told the case of Stuart Whittaker - a former factory worker from Hull who is now homeless - feeling he had been 'shoved to the back of the queue'. Downing Street yesterday admitted it was 'absolutely not' fair that locals like him are sofa-surfing while taxpayers fork out for migrant hotels. Also addressing the story in Port Talbot, Mr Farage said: 'What I tell your man from Hull, is he has every right to be upset. 'Every right to be angry. 'Just don't say anything on social media or Keir Starmer will put you in prison.' He said that while legal migration has a bigger strain on public services, it is the 'sheer unfairness of these young men' coming across the Channel illegally that rubs people up. The cost of paying for asylum support has ballooned to around £4.7billion annually, and around 15,000 migrants have arrived from France this year already. Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman said: 'It's not fair that tens of thousands of people are stuck in an asylum backlog that's wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers money, and that's why we're focused on taking the action needed to reduce the number of asylum seekers and hotels.' Minister Chris Bryant yesterday insisted that the 'best deterrent' against small boats was processing asylum claims quicker. He was slammed by Tory Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, who said: 'This is dangerous nonsense from a weak Labour Government. 'Giving illegal immigrants asylum faster is no deterrent - it will just attract even more to come here. 'A real deterrent would be removing every single illegal immigrant who arrives in the UK to somewhere like Rwanda.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Why the wrong memorial will water down the Holocaust
On Wednesday, the Holocaust Memorial Bill returns to the House of Lords. What a waste of energy over seven and more years this project has been. The motives are good. Unfortunately, the idea is not. In the great battle against growing anti-Semitism in our society, precious weapons are being mistargeted. There are strong second-order objections to the memorial and its accompanying 'learning centre'. They include the vast cost, over £200 million; the lack of room in Victoria Tower Gardens and the loss of green space; the security risk at the heart of government and Parliament which the police and parliamentary authorities increasingly fail to control; and the fact that the gardens will soon be overcrowded by the overspill for the coming 30-year project to restore the fabric of the Houses of Parliament next door. There will be parliamentary amendments tomorrow to address these last two points. Most of the Bill's opponents, many of whom are Jewish, do want a memorial, but a much smaller and more beautiful one. The present design is a grandiose hand-me-down, by the somewhat discredited architect David Adjaye, already used elsewhere. Opponents also do not want the learning centre. Tristram Hunt, the distinguished director of the V&A, thinks it could be much better managed at the Imperial War Museum. The key objection relates to what is really being commemorated. If you track the history of Holocaust Memorial Day since it was instituted a quarter of a century ago, you will find increasing pressure to water down the concept. There have been several occasions – ITV's Good Morning Britain this year, for example – in which coverage has entirely failed to mention the Jews at all, let alone the fact that the Holocaust killed six million of them. People such as the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, unfailingly hostile to Israel and previously friendly to murderous Hamas, have thus found it possible to take part in Holocaust Memorial Day without having to confront the grim truth of history. Over time, the uniqueness of the Jewish experience thus slips away. A process begins in which the word 'Holocaust' is taken to stand for any persecution of any group by any other group. From there, it is a short step to suggesting, as pro-Gaza mobs always do, that Israel itself is committing genocide against Palestinians. This is not an isolated outbreak of a few fanatics, but a deliberate plan to strip the Jewish state – and all Jews – of their moral authority. The ultimate aim is to preach the equation 'Jews = Israel = Nazis'. This libel is so widespread as to have become one of the main tropes of anti-Semitism. The danger is that the wrong sort of commemoration will facilitate this. Delegations from anti-Israel countries and 'humanitarian' organisations emerging from Parliament will stroll into Victoria Tower Gardens, pose outside the Holocaust Memorial and deliver their piece to camera about alleged war crimes, starvation of children etc. You can just imagine the ineffable Greta Thunberg doing exactly that. Sad to say, both main political parties are putting on whips to get the memorial Bill through Parliament. This suggests an underlying uncertainty about the rightness of their cause. Traditionally, votes on matters of conscience are not whipped. Surely Holocaust commemoration is a classic conscience issue in which party considerations have no place. I fear that establishment politicians, frightened of being labelled anti-Semitic, have supported this great big project without thinking about it. Yet thought is exactly what is needed to correct the errors of Holocaust education today. By the way, there exists a splendid role model for commemoration in, of all places, Poland. The POLIN museum in Warsaw movingly and expertly relates its country's part of the full story we all need to know – how Jews lived there for a thousand years and how, in the end, and most horribly, they died. Weathering the storm Like many parishes, our village held its annual fete last Saturday. The problem, in advance, was the weather. Nowadays, weather forecasting is so much more accurate that if it says, two or three days before, that it will rain, it probably will. So event-planners must take it seriously. This avoids the occasional spectacular washouts of the past, after which everyone used to say, through gritted teeth, 'Rain failed to dampen the spirits'. Our organisers therefore did the prudent thing and announced that the fete would not be held in the public garden by the church but in the village's two interconnected halls. The trouble was that, on the day, there was virtually no rain during the fete's opening hours. We all felt slightly silly because we could have stuck with the original plan and saved ourselves a lot of trouble. Should we have followed the old way and just held the thing outdoors, rain or shine? I am not sure of the answer. But I do know that everyone enjoyed the make-do atmosphere among the crowded stalls and the noisy Punch-and-Judy show inside, finding community in adversity. Business was brisk. The splash headline in our local paper says, 'Post office to remain open'. My first reaction was to laugh at this non-news. After all, it is in the nature of shops to open. But I quickly realised I was wrong. It was indeed news. The unspoken policy of the modern Post Office is to close itself down. A decision in the opposite direction certainly deserves the front page.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
I'm NOT sorry! Reeves refuses to apologise for winter fuel shambles despite restoring payments to millions of pensioners... amid fears of tax hikes to fund U-turn
Rachel Reeves claimed she had 'listened' and refused to apologise today as she humiliatingly restored winter fuel payments to nine million pensioners. The Chancellor has announced that more than three-quarters of older people will get the allowance - worth up to £300 - this winter. But another two million on incomes of more than £35,000 in England and Wales face having the money clawed back in higher tax bills. The move is the culmination of a shambolic volte face on the hated policy, which has been blamed for the dramatic plunge in Labour's popularity. It wipes out the overwhelming bulk of the savings Ms Reeves had originally pencilled in from slashing the previously-universal allowance. Only the poorest received it last winter. The Treasury is now expected to save just £450million compared to 2023-24 - blowing another £1.25bn hole in Labour's spending plans. But Ms Reeves is dodging saying where the funding will be found, amid mounting fears taxes will have to rise again as MPs push for a further U-turn on benefits curbs. The Tories demanded Ms Reeves and Keir Starmer say sorry for making vulnerable elderly people choose between 'heating and eating'. Charities welcomed the shift, but suggested the axe should never have been wielded in the first place. Extraordinarily, Ms Reeves again argued today that she had been right to make the cut. 'It will be still means-tested, but at a higher level, we've listened to people's concerns around the level of the means test,' she said. 'Because of changes we've made and the stability we've brought back to the economy, we are able to increase that amount.' 'Targeting Winter Fuel Payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. 'It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest. 'But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the Winter Fuel Payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. 'This will mean over three quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter.' All pensioners will automatically be paid winter fuel this season. The level will be £200 per household, or £300 if one person is aged over 80. But where both incomes are above the threshold it will be recouped later through PAYE or a Self-Assessment return. The £35,000 cap is per person, so in theory two-pensioner households where one has an income above the level will still get the cash. People who want to opt out of the payment altogether will be able to do so, with a mechanism to be confirmed. Ms Reeves will not spell out how she is funding the overhaul until the Budget in the Autumn. She told broadcasters: 'We will set out in the normal way, in the Budget, how everything is funded, but no-one should be in any doubt about my commitment to the fiscal rules to ensure that the sums always add up.' The Chancellor is due to lay out departmental spending allocations running up to 2029 - the likely timetable for the next general election - on Wednesday. But the generous fiscal envelope set at the Budget last Autumn has been put under massive pressure by the economic slowdown, calls for more defence cash, and Labour revolts on benefits. Ms Reeves has signalled she will announce real-terms increases to budgets for police as she tries to quell Home Office resistance. However, that is likely to be offset by cuts to other areas, with the NHS and defence sucking up funding. The political backdrop to the proposals this week is the Reform surge, with Labour panicking about the challenge from Nigel Farage. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'Keir Starmer has scrambled to clear up a mess of his own making. I repeatedly challenged him to reverse his callous decision to withdraw winter fuel payments, and every time Starmer arrogantly dismissed my criticisms. 'This humiliating u-turn will come as scant comfort to the pensioners forced to choose between heating and eating last winter. The Prime Minister should now apologise for his terrible judgement.' Introducing a tough means test on winter fuel allowance was one of the first announcements Ms Reeves made after entering No11, and has been blamed for triggering the headlong slump in Labour's popularity. Only those on the lowest incomes, receiving pensioner credit, have been entitled to the handout. Keir Starmer dramatically announced a U-turn last month, without saying what exactly was being proposed or when it would take effect. Last week Ms Reeves confirmed confirmed the changes would be in place 'this winter' – but was still unable to say who will qualify. She also said the Government will not set out how the reinstated payments will be funded until the Autumn Budget. Designing a cost-effective means test for the benefit - which ministers are adamant should not be paid to 'millionaires' - has been causing major headaches for officials. The idea has been condemned by unions amid fears bereaved families could be hit with unexpected demands for cash. Labour insiders have voiced alarm at the 'optics' of trying to recoup the allowance from the estates of those who died after getting it. The PM's official spokesman said: 'HMRC will not ask for repayment from a deceased PAYE (pay as you earn) customer if the only money owed was from a winter fuel payment.' Alex Clegg of the Resolution Foundation think-tank - which used to be run by pensions minister Torsten Bell - said: 'The new scheme for means-testing Winter Fuel Payments means that that the number of pensioners receiving support will rise from 1.3million last winter to around 9million this winter, and not far off the 11.6million who received Winter Fuel Payments two winters ago when they were universal. 'But this U-turn doesn't represent a return to the status quo. The new means-test will create new complexity in the tax system, including a cliff-edge for those with around £35,000 of income. 'The reported savings of £450million will be reduced further by the cost of increased pension credit take-up as a result of the original policy, and the cost of administering the new means-test.' Caroline Abrahams CBE, charity director at Age UK, said: 'The Government's winter fuel payment announcement makes this a good day for older people. 'The decision to restore the winter fuel payment to nine million pensioners – all but those on the highest incomes who should be able to pay their heating bills without it – is the right thing to do and something that will bring some much-needed reassurance for older people and their families. 'At Age UK we heard from many through the winter who were so frightened about their bills that they didn't even try to keep their homes adequately warm. 'We have always said what really matters is that the estimated 2.5 million older people who lost their winter fuel payment when they couldn't afford it get the money back, by one means or another. These 2.5 million comprise older people entitled to pension credit but not claiming it; those whose small incomes take them just above the line; and a third group who face extremely high bills because of severe ill health or disability.' The charity 'would much have preferred it had the Government taken this approach last summer', she added.
