Today's star

willc

what worries me most is he's to be replaced by Justin Webb, he of the very poor US elections coverage. He lacked insight, fawned over his interviewees and couldn't analyse his way out of a paper bag.

Peter Mc

Your PS. THat comes as no suprise to any of us who have had the rough end of the BBC's pineapple. Say, taken a programme proposal to them and had it lifted wholesale and given to a favoured production company.

Alex

The BBC is the state broadcaster. How dare Evans challenge ZaNuLab's postion on any matter.

If Evan Davis is not careful, he'll find himself in the same position as Ed Stourton.

DM

Evan Davis - great at setting elephant traps in a very pleasant manner.

By the way, Ed Stourton is not the first excellent presenter to be discarded in such an off hand and unjustified manner. Often he/she who shouts loudest as a presenter ensures their staying power, whilst the solid professional loses theirs.
Today editor's quote said nothing about ES's excellent stint on the programme. In fact his quote only served to welcome Justin Webb to the ship....all too easily highlighting how presenters don't even appear to have the confidence or appreciation of their own editors.
Hope Rod Liddle has something to add to Coffee Housers about how the BBC has handled all this.

LT

Speaking as a public sector worker myself, it's simply untrue to say that public sector works get paid less. Not only is median pay higher in the public sector (http://www.moneyweek.com/personal-finance/who-will-pay-for-sir-humphreys-pension.aspx) but hour-for-hour public sector workers get paid 17% more than private sector workers! Whichever way you slice it, that's not healthy, and means that the extreme dependence on the public sector found in many parts of the country will surely only continue - such perverse incentives mean that it's irrational for most people to work in the private sector.

Hereford

yes axe did you health the answer? part of it was that private sector employers want to pay less. The public sector's pay largely caught up with the private sector years ago.

BrianSJ

So Mark Serwotka would be happy for wage comparisons to be based on total cost of employment rather than wages?
What would this put the civil service minimum wage at compared to the private sector?
The comparisons made for judges etc would also take this into account?
Great. It is now on the record.

Tom

He nailed Cameron the other day too.

Michael

Yes, he is good and an object lesson for tiresome blusterer Humphries. I have also heard him sweep away quite elegantly public sector union claims that their pensions are low on average by saying it depends what wage pensioners were earning and how long they have been in the scheme. Common sense, but well beyond the wit of many political interviewers.

CS

A question you agree with might be a more appropriate description than a brilliant one.

Whoever does the job, the government still has to foot the bill, whether it's in paying the salaries of civil servants or paying the fees of contracted out agencies. The only reason the government would privatise currently public services would be to cut the costs. Whoever in the private sector bids for those services isn't going to win them by planning to pay more to their employees.

Try looking at the roll of private sector geniuses who've been brought in to run government departments only to scarper within a couple of years with a knighthood, a fat payoff and a trail of chaos to their names, and you might see that the genius of the British private sector these days is to slash costs, gut quality and bugger off with the profits before the temple comes crashing down and all those left in the lurch are stuck in a queue to a call centre in India.

They may offer to reduce costs initially by getting rid of half the photocopiers but once that's been pared down, they'll do it by screwing their employees' pay and conditions.

Now you may think that's acceptable and necessary, but it's hardly a brilliantly unanswerable question as to why civil servants have nothing to fear from being privatised.

The public sector may be bloated, the public payroll and pensions may be economically unviable, but there is no justification for the contempt with which public servants get treated by the glorified gossipmongers writing pieces on Coffee House whose sum contribution to civilisation to hold opinions about other people.

Hereford

CS: Thanks Mate, you just made the case:

"but once that's been pared down, they'll do it by screwing their employees' pay and conditions."

And they can. Guess why? Because public Sector employees (particularly the army of Central Government Civil Servants) cost far more hour for hour or unit of production than their equivalents in the private sector.

I know. I have worked with them on and off for many years.

I have never seen such a bunch of shiftless, workshy, clock watchers in all of the other sectors I have worked within.

Johan

It has all the ingredients for severe social unrest. The person who has worked hard all his life, has seen his company scheme decimated, his private pension plan robbed by Gordon Brown and regulatory failure. He is worried about redundancy but next door to him lives a well paid fire proof Public Sector employee with a bomb proof pension that is paid for out of his neighbour's taxes. It is indefensible and morally wrong.
Anyone from the Government out there, wish to comment, please?

SJH

I think more of a contrast should be made between how Britain's public finances stand compared with Australia. Brown claims that this global financial hit everyone out of the blue. Austalia, however, took advantage of the good times to get its public finances in good shape.

One such measure was the creation of the "Future Fund" in 2004 to cover future public sector pension liabilities. It was funded by budget surpluses and the proceeds of privatisations. It is independently administered and properly funded so that public sector pensions do not have to come from future Government income.

Colin Hart

There was a magical time in the summer when Today was presented by Evan Davies and Nick Robinson. Both incisive, intelligent and well-mannered in marked contrast to the half-baked interruptions and Guardianista ramblings of the regulars.

Susan Hill

Re Ed Stourton. How many people are ever made redundant sensitively ? It`s 'in my office, here`s your bin bag, on the street.' Happened at Lehman Bros, happens in Broadcasting House. Sometimes not even in the office but via an e-mail. BBC Presenters are almost always on renewable annual contracts and they know that however long they have been presenting a given programme, that contract may NOT be renewed. Maybe they need to pin a reminder up on the mirror. 'Your contract is just for a year.'
Then they wouldn`t be so 'winded' by dismissal.

"shiftless, workshy clockwatcher"

All public sector pensions (including MPs, police, doctors, etc.) should be capped at the max (i.e. half pay) currently available to someone who has put in 40 yrs service and risen to below Perm Sec level in the Civil Service. Say, somewhere in the region of £50k pa. Anyone who had screwed the taxpayer for more than double that should have been able to put enough by to cushion themselves against the loss of higher expectations. The money saved from pensions to the Ian Blairs, Ken Bostons, etc. of this world would do something to cut the indefinite burden on people who can't hope to accumulate a tenth of this for their own retirement.

cuffleyburgers

CS - the point is simply that there are too many of the bastards. The govt should set targets and close down whole departments. The only departments that are actually needed are the ones that existed before Labour came to power and even many of them could probably be done without.

As a rule of thumb the civil service should probably be around half of its current size.

Just close them down, sack'em. The country could not be any worse as a result of that change.

Anyway, making the country worse hasn't stopped labour so far...

skooch

The bloke from the CBI was very good, as well. Not ranting, not unreasonable, just persistent.

One or 2 points made clearly and repeatedly.

The Tories need to line up bunches of these kinds of guys to press home, on TV and radio, the points that they seem to find politically too difficult to tackle.

If the public's understanding and perception of these huge fault-lines in our public finances can be brought round in this way, it may allow the opposition, eventually, to engage sensibly with the arguement.