Is there any indication of how many of the 532 live in the UK? It seems reasonable that the BBC would employ journalists who are based in other countries but still on the UK payroll (it can be legally and logistically easier than paying them in-country), and private healthcare would be a logical benefit if they had little or no entitlement to public healthcare in the countries where they were based.

Intriguingly, that “research” you link to also presents its findings in a peculiar way:

“In 2008 544 BBC staff received private health insurance”

and….

“In 2008-9 129 S4C staff (from a total of 167) received private health insurance”

Notice the difference? It mentions the “total” S4C employees but not the “total” for the BBC. Presumably there’s a very good reason for this and they’re not just trying to fudge the stats… lol!

Yet another non-story for the bullshit rightwing front “TP”A. I pay tax and they don’t represent me. Funny how when it comes to UKuncut’s campaigns they said “the ideas behind the campaign are both morally disturbing and practically dangerous.” I think the same thoughts about the TPA.

**

Maybe the BBC will now think twice before vomiting TPA press releases next time it wants some free PR..?

“imprimatur”

I learned a new word today!

Good article. This is a stupid non-story even by TPA standards.

Ah well, maybe now the TPA will pick up on David Cameron spending £680,000 on Downing St refurbs? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/27/david-cameron-taxpayers-home-improvements

Taxpayer’s Alliance is an anagram for

Call-In Sex, Pay A Rate

I wonder how much money they spend on sex chat lines?

“How does the BBC compare with other large organisations?”

This is completely irrelevant to the TPA and those like them. Only public organisations must be forced to pay low salaries, have poor incentives, spend any money on frivolities like stationery (-ary? -ery? I just don’t know).

Public money you see. Must hold to account. All very reasonable. Except no-one will ever do this with a private company – even if it gains its funding from the public purse. There are plenty of companies out there now whose income is either predominantly or soley derived from government contracts. I.E. taxpayer’s money. But no one will ever ask them about executive pay or such. Private you see. None of our beeswax what they get up to so long as they deliver t’deliverables (no consideration of whether the public bodies they attack deliver or not, just plain wrong for them).

It all adds up to a campaign of course to get all such comanies replaced by privatised businesses. Ones then free to pay their execs what ever they damn well choose with the public cash.

Rar. It really gets my goat.

Does anyone still listen to these shrills?

Didn’t they have a March lately and nobody turned up?

The BBC should be ashamed of themselves for giving such a high profile platform to a group which clearly have a tiny and perhaps insignificant support.

Confession time folks: I made a mistake.

The potential reduction in the licence fee isn’t 25p, but 2.5p – which means the TPA idea of taking the PHI from the Beeb’s execs would produce even less saving.

The rest stands, though, and I’ve also updated the original:

http://zelo.tv/ln5S74

According to ONS 18% of all healthcare spend is spent on private healthcare. According to OFT 61% of private healthcare spend comes from private health insurance (23% is from the NHS ie NHS patients getting care in a private hospital, and 15% is self pay). So that means the proportion total spend via private healthcare through insurance (paid for by themselves or employer) is 61% x 18% or 11%.

So 2% of BBC employees getting private health insurance seems small.

“Maybe the BBC will now think twice before vomiting TPA press releases next time it wants some free PR..?”

You would hope so. The BBC has decided to get on it’s knees and grovel to the Right wing. It won’t do them any good. No point appeasing people who want to destoy you.

Paxman’s interview about abortion the other night was a disgrace. Talk about giving Dorres an easy ride. Yet the pro abortion person was interupted 4-5 times within a minute of her speaking. When Dorres talked Paxman shut his mouth. Pathetic.

I’m a 16 year old Labour activist and blogger. Just finished a post on why the IMF job needs Gordon Brown, and why Gordon Brown needs the IMF job. Be great if you could have a look:
http://a-week-is-a-long-time-in-politics.blogspot.com/

@11. Rory: Nice try, mate. But I think you would find it hard to identify people from the liberal left or right who would agree with the statement: “A man [Gordon Brown], whilst highly acclaimed for his achievements when the banking system collapsed, is unfairly loathed by Britain’s electorate.” Alistair Darling, perhaps?

But please carry on thinking and writing. I write as a LibDem-ish opponent who is open to contrary arguments from lefty liberals.

“And if those 532 staff exclusively used the NHS, there would be a need for more resources for that service.”

How excellent. Thanks for providing that argument. So, everyone who does buy private health insurance is lifting the burden on the NHS. Everyone who buys provate schooling is lifting the burden on the education budget. Everyone who buys provate security is lifting the burden on the police budget.

Excellent, great. You’ve just justified two tier, public and private, services.

Is this what you actually meant to do?

@13, I haven’t “justified” anything.

It’s taken you almost a whole day to come out with the usual snark, and even then you have to invent things I haven’t said to make your point.

Is that what you actually meant to do?

According to my neighbour, who works for the BBC, all BBC staff are entitled to a discounted rate BUPA scheme (costing employees 40-50% less than the standard rate).

But the top 532 managers get FREE health insurance with another provider (PPP).

Why?

Of all the BBC , surely Mark Thompson (taking home around £800,000 pa in salary and bonuses) and his senior colleagues, really need no help affording their insurance premiums?

Well done TPA for once again demonstrating how a public sector organization appears to be run for the benefit of its senior bureaucrats, rather than for the taxpayers/licence-fee payers.

This is precisely the kind of indefensible perk an organization should cut BEFORE cutting the frontline…

I wasn’t aware that ‘grasping at straws’ had a smell, but somehow I’m smelling it.

@12 Charlieman

” But I think you would find it hard to identify people from the liberal left or right who would agree with the statement: “A man [Gordon Brown], whilst highly acclaimed for his achievements when the banking system collapsed, is unfairly loathed by Britain’s electorate.” Alistair Darling, perhaps?”

I’m on the liberal left, and I agree with that statement. Not based on liberal principles, because Brown’s authoritarian stance was enough to stop me voting for him, but because I think the media (and henceforth the nation) put him in a no-win situation from the start.

My attitude towards the TPA is that I’ll read any third-party study they link to, but that it’s barely worth addressing things the TPA itself says as it invariably turns out to be lies. As far as reliable news sources go, they’re rougly on par with the National Enquirer.

In general, aren’t most perks effectively a top up for wages. So rather than giving someone a pay rise, you offer them perks, which are more cost effective, because bulk buying etc mean that rather than, say, giving someone a 1000 pound pay rise, you offer them a perk which costs the company 600 pounds but would have cost the individual 1000?

@ 19 Ed

Yes, exactly. Nearly everyone on a permanent contract receives a “pay package” these days rather than just a wage, whether that involves health insurance, pensions, company cars, access to discount schemes, or anything else. The TPA, true to form, appears to be outraged that state employees get roughly the same treatment as private employees.

@15 Flowerpower

According to my neighbour, who works for the BBC, all BBC staff are entitled to a discounted rate BUPA scheme (costing employees 40-50% less than the standard rate).

But the top 532 managers get FREE health insurance with another provider (PPP).

Happens in private sector companies all the time.

Next thing to get hysterical about?

Its laughable isn’t it. For years the Toiries have argued for private sector style management in the public sector , aided by Nu Labour. When it happens they use to undermine the public sector.

It happened in Further Education. Public spirited managers were ousted under Major and Blair and new rivate sector styke contracts brought in in order ‘ to attract the ( not) talent.’.

However this is only for senior management in the BBC, its nornmal in the private sector at that level. I personally disagree with it,

This is pure malice from Sinclair, an idiot with links to the TEA party.

Sorry for the typos, I’m tired

soryy for the typos I am tired