Lineker has thoughts that he is now a world leader , really , I think not.
Just as he's a far better presenter than Johnson, he'd make a far better PM (a low bar admittedly). Fortunately he doesn't have the obsessive ambition for the job that Johnson had.
I will declare an interest in that I quite like football (the clue is in my name!). Gary Lineker just happens to be quite good at what he does and is remunerated accordingly. He would be rewarded similarly in many organisations, as would the other 'talent'.
The Government has had an agenda against the BBC since it came to power. They have been clever, forcing the BBC to set out details of talent salaries, but also making it appear (for those with short memories) as if the BBC withdrew free TV licences for the over 75's. Actually the money for this used to be paid by Government. In any case many over 75's don't actually need a free TV licence.
We need high quality public service broadcasting, and the TV licence pays for this. £3 per week is cheap (one pint of beer?!). How much is Sky TV these days? Have you ever been to the USA and Australia and watched the rubbish that their free to air TV channels offer. A lot of what the BBC delivers would be very difficult to commercialise.
I wouldn't want to rely on Netflix/Facebook/Twitter/Rupert Murdoch etc to deliver proper and reliable 'news', there would be even more 'fake news' than there is now and no-one to fact check it!!
The majority appear to be over paid, over rated far from knowledgeable auto cue monkeys who without the ear piece would be total duffers.
In fact what do they really do.
I want the BBC to remain free from advertising and the constraints that it delivers. It is a respected source of independent news with their own reporters around the world. In this respect it is far ahead of other broadcasters or news organisations. Their objective of "Inform, educate and entertain" is more than just worthy it does immense credit.
Consider the BBC website; free to use, it represents the journal of record which used to be occupied by The Times, it is extensive and authoritative. They do this with noticably les money than Sky, whose money goes substantially into sport, particularly Premiership football. Rather than targeting individuals, perhaps point at the distortions in our society created by Sky.
It isn't fault free - what organisation is? In the past five years they have confused balance, to which they have an obligation, with equal airtime. But this is no reason to destroy them.
They will, almost certainly, need to find a new funding model.
But to my delight they have commentary from every First Class, List A and T20 cricket match, mostly as a stream.
If some individuals have, through their agents, negotiated huge remuneration packages then that reflects their popularity. For myself, I don't see how they are worth it but in the overall budget these tall poppies don't make such an impact.
Democratic dissent is not disloyalty, it is a positive civic duty
Zoe Ball didn't get those 8 million listeners through her own efforts. She can thank the likes of Chris Evans & Terry Wogan for building up the audience for her!!
I wonder just how many would actually pay to listen to her.................certainly NOT ME!!
I think there are many areas to make savings - while I like the lovely ladies who present the local weather, straight after is the national weather that give the same information. Most use app's now so why bother at all with TV weather - just get the news presenter to talk through the map!