Reckon it's hard to compare the likes of Lineker to Ant & Dec etc. People (not me) absolutely love Ant & Dec and would watch them in almost anything, whereas people tune into the football for the football, regardless of who the person presenting is.
If it comes down to personal choice, I prefer Dan Walker to jug ears anyway. The banter between him and some of the pundits, particularly Richards, makes me want to vomit
It does. I prefer Lineker to Ant and Dec but don't think any of them deserve their salaries. Ant and Dec are talented individuals that play it safe and rake it in. Their Saturday Night Takeaway show was entertaininging enough after a few episodes until you realise it is the same show every week.
One of the ways ITV pays their salaries is by promoting gambling and I'm sure vulnerable people are exploited in the way they do it. If these presenters had their money halved would the quality of programming fall, I doubt it.
I watched a great programme on the asteroid which hit the earth and wiped out the Dinosaurs a few days ago. This is what the BBC does better than most broadcasters IMO. I think ITV as a channel has given up on creating anything that isn't completely shallow and even Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky do much better.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
MPs salaries are funded by the tax payer. I feel the Tory lobbyists might not advocate the lowest possible cost to the tax payer for them? At least the BBC employees can do their job competently.
MPs are paid £86k a year (acknowledging funding for offices / accommodation etc. etc.).
Given what they do (and the vast vast majority are in it for the public service and because they have a passion for delivering change, not the power and the glory) I'd suggest they are significantly underpaid.
Most could earn a hell of a lot more by operating full time in both the public and private sector.
They are a very easy target (literally in some cases), and unfairly so IMO. Spend a day with a constituency MP of any label and you'd find that they do, in the main, an outstanding job - dedicated, passionate (whether you agree with their passion or not) hard working and very competent.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
Not particularly agreeing as the point some else made, profit or not for profit it’s still the free market, Lineker can get up and go to sky or ITV if he’s not happy with the money.
But why would he get up and walk when he has a national audience and a hefty salary?
I'm probably one of the most right wing free marketeers on here (frankly anyone slightly right of centre can claim that), but the free market doesn't provide the right to waste tax payers (or in this case licence fee payers money). In fact, I'd argue the opposite.
Reckon it's hard to compare the likes of Lineker to Ant & Dec etc. People (not me) absolutely love Ant & Dec and would watch them in almost anything, whereas people tune into the football for the football, regardless of who the person presenting is.
If it comes down to personal choice, I prefer Dan Walker to jug ears anyway. The banter between him and some of the pundits, particularly Richards, makes me want to vomit
It does. I prefer Lineker to Ant and Dec but don't think any of them deserve their salaries. Ant and Dec are talented individuals that play it safe and rake it in. Their Saturday Night Takeaway show was entertaininging enough after a few episodes until you realise it is the same show every week.
One of the ways ITV pays their salaries is by promoting gambling and I'm sure vulnerable people are exploited in the way they do it. If these presenters had their money halved would the quality of programming fall, I doubt it.
I watched a great programme on the asteroid which hit the earth and wiped out the Dinosaurs a few days ago. This is what the BBC does better than most broadcasters IMO. I think ITV as a channel has given up on creating anything that isn't completely shallow and even Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky do much better.
I doubt whether the dinosaurs were that impressed!
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
MPs salaries are funded by the tax payer. I feel the Tory lobbyists might not advocate the lowest possible cost to the tax payer for them? At least the BBC employees can do their job competently.
MPs are paid £86k a year (acknowledging funding for offices / accommodation etc. etc.).
Given what they do (and the vast vast majority are in it for the public service and because they have a passion for delivering change, not the power and the glory) I'd suggest they are significantly underpaid.
Most could earn a hell of a lot more by operating full time in both the public and private sector.
They are a very easy target (literally in some cases), and unfairly so IMO. Spend a day with a constituency MP of any label and you'd find that they do, in the main, an outstanding job - dedicated, passionate (whether you agree with their passion or not) hard working and very competent.
Thanks for the LOL Arny - always good to keep the count up.
It would be good to know what part of the post you disagree with and based on what, given that none of the content is actually funny.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
MPs salaries are funded by the tax payer. I feel the Tory lobbyists might not advocate the lowest possible cost to the tax payer for them? At least the BBC employees can do their job competently.
MPs are paid £86k a year (acknowledging funding for offices / accommodation etc. etc.).
Given what they do (and the vast vast majority are in it for the public service and because they have a passion for delivering change, not the power and the glory) I'd suggest they are significantly underpaid.
Most could earn a hell of a lot more by operating full time in both the public and private sector.
They are a very easy target (literally in some cases), and unfairly so IMO. Spend a day with a constituency MP of any label and you'd find that they do, in the main, an outstanding job - dedicated, passionate (whether you agree with their passion or not) hard working and very competent.
UK MPs are at least 50% responsible for the state the UK is in. If you think that is competence, then we will have to agree to disagree. I also disagree about the vast majority not being in it for the power and the glory.
Some are exactly as you say, I am sure, but I believe it is a small minority, and mostly made up of non-conservatives. You only have to look at what tories vote for and against in the HOC to see that they do not have the best for the country at heart.
Spotadicaddict you need to change your name to moronicaddict if you think our politicians are doing a good job. Do you think they should get performance bonuses for how well there doing as well.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
Not particularly agreeing as the point some else made, profit or not for profit it’s still the free market, Lineker can get up and go to sky or ITV if he’s not happy with the money.
But why would he get up and walk when he has a national audience and a hefty salary?
I'm probably one of the most right wing free marketeers on here (frankly anyone slightly right of centre can claim that), but the free market doesn't provide the right to waste tax payers (or in this case licence fee payers money). In fact, I'd argue the opposite.
I hope that you will condemn the huge waste of taxpayer's money that has been spent on Brexit preparations, the ppe contracts scandal (Michelle Mone) and Covid fraud that the Government has given up on claiming, this runs into billions.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
Not particularly agreeing as the point some else made, profit or not for profit it’s still the free market, Lineker can get up and go to sky or ITV if he’s not happy with the money.
But why would he get up and walk when he has a national audience and a hefty salary?
I'm probably one of the most right wing free marketeers on here (frankly anyone slightly right of centre can claim that), but the free market doesn't provide the right to waste tax payers (or in this case licence fee payers money). In fact, I'd argue the opposite.
I hope that you will condemn the huge waste of taxpayer's money that has been spent on Brexit preparations, the ppe contracts scandal (Michelle Mone) and Covid fraud that the Government has given up on claiming, this runs into billions.
Of course - individuals have absolutely scammed Covid and they should face the full force of legal sanctions if proven in a court of law.
Spotadicaddict you need to change your name to moronicaddict if you think our politicians are doing a good job. Do you think they should get performance bonuses for how well they’re doing as well.
“Our politicians” is a very broad term. Who mentioned performance bonuses?
yes I think in the round they do a great job. Of course people that can do better rarely stand up and put themselves forwards.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
Not particularly agreeing as the point some else made, profit or not for profit it’s still the free market, Lineker can get up and go to sky or ITV if he’s not happy with the money.
But why would he get up and walk when he has a national audience and a hefty salary?
I'm probably one of the most right wing free marketeers on here (frankly anyone slightly right of centre can claim that), but the free market doesn't provide the right to waste tax payers (or in this case licence fee payers money). In fact, I'd argue the opposite.
I hope that you will condemn the huge waste of taxpayer's money that has been spent on Brexit preparations, the ppe contracts scandal (Michelle Mone) and Covid fraud that the Government has given up on claiming, this runs into billions.
Of course - individuals have absolutely scammed Covid and they should face the full force of legal sanctions if proven in a court of law.
This isn’t Russia.
Trouble is, the politicians who allowed it to happen refuse to take them to court.
There good at fiddling there expenses I suppose that’s there bonus because there second jobs don’t pay much.Don’t know how they fit these second jobs in there’s so busy.
They’re good at fiddling there expenses I suppose that’s there bonus because there second jobs don’t pay much.Don’t know how they fit these second jobs in there’s so busy.
Not forgotten, just can’t be arsed to respond to such illiterate rants.
Since technology came in watching after the start and fast forwarding through the football punditry. I see absolutely no point in Lineker or Shearer or any football ‘pundit’. Maybe I’m missing something glaringly obvious, but all these people seem to do is take up the time when we could be seeing more of the sport, how do they add to the coverage?
I agree with you and don’t think the BBC need to be competitive on salaries with Sky, BT Sports etc for this particular skillset. I think they overrate how much viewers value the pundits.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
MPs salaries are funded by the tax payer. I feel the Tory lobbyists might not advocate the lowest possible cost to the tax payer for them? At least the BBC employees can do their job competently.
MPs are paid £86k a year (acknowledging funding for offices / accommodation etc. etc.).
Given what they do (and the vast vast majority are in it for the public service and because they have a passion for delivering change, not the power and the glory) I'd suggest they are significantly underpaid.
Most could earn a hell of a lot more by operating full time in both the public and private sector.
They are a very easy target (literally in some cases), and unfairly so IMO. Spend a day with a constituency MP of any label and you'd find that they do, in the main, an outstanding job - dedicated, passionate (whether you agree with their passion or not) hard working and very competent.
I’d be happy for MP’s to have a pay rise providing they were not allowed to take separate jobs. And fiddling expenses, lobbying for money, awarding contracts to acquaintances and other fraudulent behaviour committed by them carried an automatic ten year prison sentence
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
Not particularly agreeing as the point some else made, profit or not for profit it’s still the free market, Lineker can get up and go to sky or ITV if he’s not happy with the money.
But why would he get up and walk when he has a national audience and a hefty salary?
I'm probably one of the most right wing free marketeers on here (frankly anyone slightly right of centre can claim that), but the free market doesn't provide the right to waste tax payers (or in this case licence fee payers money). In fact, I'd argue the opposite.
The point I’m making is if they do listen to the ramblings from the usual right whingers in the media about BBC salaries and cut his pay, he will jump ship, he’s paid the hefty salary because that’s what the market demands.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
MPs salaries are funded by the tax payer. I feel the Tory lobbyists might not advocate the lowest possible cost to the tax payer for them? At least the BBC employees can do their job competently.
MPs are paid £86k a year (acknowledging funding for offices / accommodation etc. etc.).
Given what they do (and the vast vast majority are in it for the public service and because they have a passion for delivering change, not the power and the glory) I'd suggest they are significantly underpaid.
Most could earn a hell of a lot more by operating full time in both the public and private sector.
They are a very easy target (literally in some cases), and unfairly so IMO. Spend a day with a constituency MP of any label and you'd find that they do, in the main, an outstanding job - dedicated, passionate (whether you agree with their passion or not) hard working and very competent.
I’d be happy for MP’s to have a pay rise providing they were not allowed to take separate jobs. And fiddling expenses, lobbying for money, awarding contracts to acquaintances and other fraudulent behaviour committed by them carried an automatic ten year prison sentence
I tend to agree. My view is that any MP taking office should be paid an equivalent salary to that which they earned prior to being elected - perhaps based on their average income over the previous 3 (?) years.
Reckon it's hard to compare the likes of Lineker to Ant & Dec etc. People (not me) absolutely love Ant & Dec and would watch them in almost anything, whereas people tune into the football for the football, regardless of who the person presenting is.
If it comes down to personal choice, I prefer Dan Walker to jug ears anyway. The banter between him and some of the pundits, particularly Richards, makes me want to vomit
It does. I prefer Lineker to Ant and Dec but don't think any of them deserve their salaries. Ant and Dec are talented individuals that play it safe and rake it in. Their Saturday Night Takeaway show was entertaininging enough after a few episodes until you realise it is the same show every week.
One of the ways ITV pays their salaries is by promoting gambling and I'm sure vulnerable people are exploited in the way they do it. If these presenters had their money halved would the quality of programming fall, I doubt it.
I watched a great programme on the asteroid which hit the earth and wiped out the Dinosaurs a few days ago. This is what the BBC does better than most broadcasters IMO. I think ITV as a channel has given up on creating anything that isn't completely shallow and even Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky do much better.
I doubt whether the dinosaurs were that impressed!
We will find out later when the dinosaurs post on CL 🧐
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
MPs salaries are funded by the tax payer. I feel the Tory lobbyists might not advocate the lowest possible cost to the tax payer for them? At least the BBC employees can do their job competently.
MPs are paid £86k a year (acknowledging funding for offices / accommodation etc. etc.).
Given what they do (and the vast vast majority are in it for the public service and because they have a passion for delivering change, not the power and the glory) I'd suggest they are significantly underpaid.
Most could earn a hell of a lot more by operating full time in both the public and private sector.
They are a very easy target (literally in some cases), and unfairly so IMO. Spend a day with a constituency MP of any label and you'd find that they do, in the main, an outstanding job - dedicated, passionate (whether you agree with their passion or not) hard working and very competent.
Thanks for the LOL Arny - always good to keep the count up.
It would be good to know what part of the post you disagree with and based on what, given that none of the content is actually funny.
This is why we need a “what you said is funny” bottom, and a “what you said is laughable” button.
The free market determines the salary, however absurd they may seem. And those that are upset by the high salaries (Tory lobbyists) spend most of their days advocating for unregulated free markets, confusing all this isn’t it.
Slight nuance in that these salaries, whilst in the free market, are also taxpayer funded. A "Tory lobbyist" would absolutely advocate lowest possible cost to the taxpayer - Lineker and Shearer's salaries are fundamentally not good value for money for the taxpayer.
MPs salaries are funded by the tax payer. I feel the Tory lobbyists might not advocate the lowest possible cost to the tax payer for them? At least the BBC employees can do their job competently.
MPs are paid £86k a year (acknowledging funding for offices / accommodation etc. etc.).
Given what they do (and the vast vast majority are in it for the public service and because they have a passion for delivering change, not the power and the glory) I'd suggest they are significantly underpaid.
Most could earn a hell of a lot more by operating full time in both the public and private sector.
They are a very easy target (literally in some cases), and unfairly so IMO. Spend a day with a constituency MP of any label and you'd find that they do, in the main, an outstanding job - dedicated, passionate (whether you agree with their passion or not) hard working and very competent.
Thanks for the LOL Arny - always good to keep the count up.
It would be good to know what part of the post you disagree with and based on what, given that none of the content is actually funny.
This is why we need a “what you said is funny” bottom, and a “what you said is laughable” button.
Comments
One of the ways ITV pays their salaries is by promoting gambling and I'm sure vulnerable people are exploited in the way they do it. If these presenters had their money halved would the quality of programming fall, I doubt it.
I watched a great programme on the asteroid which hit the earth and wiped out the Dinosaurs a few days ago. This is what the BBC does better than most broadcasters IMO. I think ITV as a channel has given up on creating anything that isn't completely shallow and even Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky do much better.
Given what they do (and the vast vast majority are in it for the public service and because they have a passion for delivering change, not the power and the glory) I'd suggest they are significantly underpaid.
Most could earn a hell of a lot more by operating full time in both the public and private sector.
They are a very easy target (literally in some cases), and unfairly so IMO. Spend a day with a constituency MP of any label and you'd find that they do, in the main, an outstanding job - dedicated, passionate (whether you agree with their passion or not) hard working and very competent.
I'm probably one of the most right wing free marketeers on here (frankly anyone slightly right of centre can claim that), but the free market doesn't provide the right to waste tax payers (or in this case licence fee payers money). In fact, I'd argue the opposite.
Thanks for the LOL Arny - always good to keep the count up.
It would be good to know what part of the post you disagree with and based on what, given that none of the content is actually funny.
Some are exactly as you say, I am sure, but I believe it is a small minority, and mostly made up of non-conservatives. You only have to look at what tories vote for and against in the HOC to see that they do not have the best for the country at heart.
This isn’t Russia.
yes I think in the round they do a great job. Of course people that can do better rarely stand up and put themselves forwards.
I tend to agree. My view is that any MP taking office should be paid an equivalent salary to that which they earned prior to being elected - perhaps based on their average income over the previous 3 (?) years.
We will find out later when the dinosaurs post on CL 🧐