BBC Parliament to end nearly all original programming

[HEW2343]

From the Financial Times
"According to people with knowledge of the plans, BBC Parliament will scale back its programming from the autumn including ending its rolling coverage of UK political party conferences for the first time since the 1960s."

"Staffing levels at the channel, which was launched in 1998, are set to be cut to single figures while nearly all original programming will come to an end, the people said."

"The broadcaster said: “BBC Parliament will continue to provide substantial coverage of the UK’s parliaments and assemblies.” One insider added that coverage of party conferences would continue through news bulletins and the rolling BBC News Channel. Parliament is also now live streamed through its official website."

"As part of the changes, BBC Parliament’s special daily shows covering debates will also end. The Day and Week in Parliament programmes will be replaced from September with a new weekly highlights programme, called Politics UK, which will be broadcast on BBC2 on Friday lunchtimes. "

"Political events beyond Westminster, such as speeches and lectures, will no longer be covered by BBC Parliament. There is also expected to be a significant reduction in the channel’s coverage of the House of Lords and select committees. The corporation hopes to mitigate the cuts with a new Friday addition of the Politics Live programme."

[Cassia Tuna]

And this benefits who, exactly?

[Whataday]

And this benefits who, exactly?

But who does BBC Parliament benefit really? As the article says most of these events have their own live streaming.

[Universal_r]

I wish they would keep the day in Parliament, I find they’re a good round up of what’s happened that day and covers the small things that doesn’t really get a mention on the news channel.

[Cassia Tuna]

And this benefits who, exactly?

But who does BBC Parliament benefit really? As the article says most of these events have their own live streaming.

Surely in a democratic society the British public should have easy access to material covering what happens in the places where the laws of the land are made?

[caseyref]

And this benefits who, exactly?

But who does BBC Parliament benefit really? As the article says most of these events have their own live streaming.

Surely in a democratic society the British public should have easy access to material covering what happens in the places where the laws of the land are made?

Why does the BBC have to provide this service? - If Parliament have their own streaming services online they could take over the BBC Parliament channel broadcasting spectrum and replace with their own content with live streams and replays.

I've read many a post on this forum of people complaining about the BBC spending too much and prioritise spend on what people actually want to watch, then when the BBC make cuts on a channel with very very low viewership people complain.

Personally I've found it odd the responsibility of democratic material must be handled by the BBC. The Government should manage this themselves.

[AJ]

But who does BBC Parliament benefit really? As the article says most of these events have their own live streaming.

Surely in a democratic society the British public should have easy access to material covering what happens in the places where the laws of the land are made?

Why does the BBC have to provide this service? - If Parliament have their own streaming services online they could take over the BBC Parliament channel broadcasting spectrum and replace with their own content with live streams and replays.

I've read many a post on this forum of people complaining about the BBC spending too much and prioritise spend on what people actually want to watch, then when the BBC make cuts on a channel with very very low viewership people complain.

Personally I've found it odd the responsibility of democratic material must be handled by the BBC. The Government should manage this themselves.

It was previously a commercial venture, but it failed - hence BBC Parliament coming in to existence.

As much as the BBC may have a perceived problem with bias - I'm not sure I'd want the government to be running this kind of thing. Ultimately, it's paid by us in either case.

[DTV]

I wouldn't be surprised if these plans end up not happening. The exact same policy was announced a few years ago before being shelved when MPs complained. No doubt they will complain this time and the BBC will end up finding the cuts elsewhere. I know that some will use the argument about the BBC's democratic responsibilities, but BBC Parliament is a service it provides voluntarily.

For obvious reasons, a government-run channel would be a bad idea. But there is no reason that the parliamentary authorities couldn't take over the channel - including producing programming. They already have a fair bit of control over coverage and are used to producing non-partisan information for public consumption. It is also fairly common for legislative broadcasters to be operated by the parliament itself and they already operate the Parliament TV website which somewhat took over from the BBC's Democracy Live website.

[Brekkie]

I thought Democracy Live was brilliant and a much better way to broadcast what is going on in our political institutions in a broadband environment than a linear TV channel but sadly it got ditched before it really had the chance to get going - perhaps it was arguably before it's time.

I understand the logic behind axing seperate programmes on BBC Parliament and where the cost saving could be made, although arguably something like Today in Parliament would fit on the news channel as well. I don't quite get the logic in them not streaming party conferences if they're going to be filmed for the news channel anyway, especially if they take place during a recess from Parliament.

[Keith]

I thought Democracy Live was brilliant and a much better way to broadcast what is going on in our political institutions in a broadband environment than a linear TV channel but sadly it got ditched before it really had the chance to get going - perhaps it was arguably before it's time.

I understand the logic behind axing seperate programmes on BBC Parliament and where the cost saving could be made, although arguably something like Today in Parliament would fit on the news channel as well. I don't quite get the logic in them not streaming party conferences if they're going to be filmed for the news channel anyway, especially if they take place during a recess from Parliament.

I'm inclined to agree that Today in Parliament could fit in well on the News Channel (when the parliaments are in session), and might be a concession if/when politicians object to the loss of the programme from BBC Parliament. It's interesting to note that a weekly highlights programme is set to be shown on BBC Two on Friday lunchtimes, presumably to be shown 12.15pm to 1pm as per Politics Live.

I imagine with the party conferences not live streaming them means they don't have to have someone live editing between cameras for BBC Parliament, in addition someone else editing footage for bulletins. I imagine the News Channel will probably only show the key speeches from party conferences live, which presumably means fewer resources required for most of the time.

[Blubatt]

This seems like its a long time coming, really. It is never nice to hear that people are losing their jobs, especially if the employees are being reduced to single figures, but BBC Parliament is such a niche channel, it really only serves a select group of people. Politics students, politics pundits, and lazy Members of Parliament or Lords. That isn't to say that I personally feel that the service should be axed, but there are better ways of doing this sort of thing. A proper integration with the BBC News Channel, and maybe a Red Button service

[gottago]

The studio programmes on the channel always felt like an odd luxury considering how many other services have been axed across the BBC over the years, even if they are cheap as chips to produce. They surely can't be watched by more than a few thousand people?

[DTV]

The studio programmes on the channel always felt like an odd luxury considering how many other services have been axed across the BBC over the years, even if they are cheap as chips to produce. They surely can't be watched by more than a few thousand people?

Which is a shame really - it's one of the few elements of political programming on the BBC that hasn't been taken over by clickbait-driven producers intent on getting a bunch of tedious opinion columnists and backbench-for-a-reason MPs to argue over any issue in a way that will gain hopefully social media traction. A better scheduled Today in Parliament/Politcs would be far more preferable as a flagship daily politics programme than Politics Live.

[Brekkie]

I guess when it comes to cost v value a linear service with live and delayed coverage of proceedings would cost less than revisiting the Democracy Live idea where you'd have at least the Lords and Commons live, and if doing it properly add in the governments in the nations and Westminster committee meetings too. Presumably any programming lost will just be replaced with footage from Parliament.

I have long argued that BBC Parliament's airtime would be better utilised elsewhere at weekends and during recesses as an extra red button stream for live events but to be honest thanks to reduced rights that isn't the issue it once was.

[Neil Jones]

Well BBC Parliament already had a budget cut to practically next to sod all, with these changes it will be literally sod all.

Of course it could probably be argued that they're just duplicating what Parliament is already producing. Even the days of Democracy Live was just Parliament content in new packaging. Parliament produces Hansard (which it has done since the 18th century) and though this was a feature of Democracy Live, Parliament's website is more user friendly than it used to be in this regard (and of course they have their own streaming platform too, which is relatively recent I believe).