If it doesn't have too emetic an effect on you, imagine this. Gathered together in one room, you have Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister; Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs; and Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC. All three head organisations that have benefited mightily from taxpayers' money and have presided over systems in which their people have hugely rewarded themselves. To one degree or another, furthermore, they have tolerated or even celebrated this greed.
You ask what they have to say for themselves. Brown says he has already said sorry to the British people, as has David Cameron as Leader of the Opposition, and has pledged to clean up Parliament's act, though there was precious little evidence of that in the Queen's Speech. Blankfein says he apologised (again) last week for his bank's role in the credit crisis and for his quip that bankers were "doing God's work"; and, by way of penance, Goldman is now pouring money into developing enterprises across America.
Then you turn to Thompson. What does he have to say for himself? Last week, it was revealed that 100 top BBC executives are paid £20 million, the average nudging £200,000, or £214,000 including other entitlements, some 10 times the average British salary. Thompson looks you straight in the eye and tells you that he is not planning any kind of pay freeze, that his executives are worth every penny and that, anyway, licence-payers are more concerned about repeats than they are about what his apparatchiks are paid.
A sharp intake of breath is heard from Brown and Blankfein, who shake their heads pityingly at him. Thompson has no idea yet of the opprobrium that can be dumped on those who believe they can carry their old credo of avarice into the new austerity. This kind of greed-is-good chutzpah is now less admired than reviled by those of us who are thoroughly fed up with paying for the self-indulgence of our political and financial elite.
But let us look at the case for Thompson's defence. He isn't indulging in the vogue for insincere apologies, the kind of exercise in faux contrition that causes Tony Blair to apologise for anything from the Irish potato famine to the Slaughter of the First Born, rather than something he actually did, such as invade Iraq. And while political leaders and bankers wring their hands with regret, there's precious little evidence that they have really changed, as Alan "forced to live on rations" Duncan and bumper City bonuses demonstrate only too vividly.
Maybe Thompson is mindful of an incoming Conservative government that intends to slash the licence fee and is holding fire until he sees the whites of shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt's eyes. Nobody ever cuts a budget until they know how much is going to be cut for them. But, speaking of cuts, I think I've cut Thompson enough slack here. The BBC's arrogance in taking our licence fee and paying a couple of hundred grand to its mostly mediocre executives remains breathtaking.
In the wa
Published: 7:29AM GMT 23 Nov 2009
Comments 13 | Comment on this article
If it doesn't have too emetic an effect on you, imagine this. Gathered together in one room, you have Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister; Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs; and Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC. All three head organisations that have benefited mightily from taxpayers' money and have presided over systems in which their people have hugely rewarded themselves. To one degree or another, furthermore, they have tolerated or even celebrated this greed.
You ask what they have to say for themselves. Brown says he has already said sorry to the British people, as has David Cameron as Leader of the Opposition, and has pledged to clean up Parliament's act, though there was precious little evidence of that in the Queen's Speech. Blankfein says he apologised (again) last week for his bank's role in the credit crisis and for his quip that bankers were "doing God's work"; and, by way of penance, Goldman is now pouring money into developing enterprises across America.
Then you turn to Thompson. What does he have to say for himself? Last week, it was revealed that 100 top BBC executives are paid £20 million, the average nudging £200,000, or £214,000 including other entitlements, some 10 times the average British salary. Thompson looks you straight in the eye and tells you that he is not planning any kind of pay freeze, that his executives are worth every penny and that, anyway, licence-payers are more concerned about repeats than they are about what his apparatchiks are paid.
A sharp intake of breath is heard from Brown and Blankfein, who shake their heads pityingly at him. Thompson has no idea yet of the opprobrium that can be dumped on those who believe they can carry their old credo of avarice into the new austerity. This kind of greed-is-good chutzpah is now less admired than reviled by those of us who are thoroughly fed up with paying for the self-indulgence of our political and financial elite.
But let us look at the case for Thompson's defence. He isn't indulging in the vogue for insincere apologies, the kind of exercise in faux contrition that causes Tony Blair to apologise for anything from the Irish potato famine to the Slaughter of the First Born, rather than something he actually did, such as invade Iraq. And while political leaders and bankers wring their hands with regret, there's precious little evidence that they have really changed, as Alan "forced to live on rations" Duncan and bumper City bonuses demonstrate only too vividly.
Maybe Thompson is mindful of an incoming Conservative government that intends to slash the licence fee and is holding fire until he sees the whites of shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt's eyes. Nobody ever cuts a budget until they know how much is going to be cut for them. But, speaking of cuts, I think I've cut Thompson enough slack here. The BBC's arrogance in taking our licence fee and paying a couple of hundred grand to its mostly mediocre executives remains breathtaking.
In the wake of the BBC's fat-cat report, we hear that the corporation is unconcerned, because its own research shows that its salaries and expenses are way down the priority list of licence-payers. Apparently, the viewing public is more concerned with "repeats, quality of content, impartiality, swearing and bad language" than it is with executive pay. So that's OK then. But wait a minute. Isn't it gob-smackingly obvious that we might make a connection between these two issues? Not only are BBC executives paying themselves more than the Prime Minister and buying designer handbags on the licence fee, while Thompson even claims 70p expenses for parking his car, but the output is still rubbish, too.
They have so cut themselves off from reality that they can't hear what they're saying. There is now a Versailles mentality among the BBC aristocracy. On being told in their plush parlours that we peasants are being starved of decent broadcasting, the response is less "let them eat cake" as "let them watch cack". But we peasants are revolting. I'm sure BBC execs would smirk in ironic agreement at that observation, but they would do well to mark that the public mood has turned ugly towards those who line their pockets at our expense.
There has been an assumption among the political and banking classes that all this will blow over and that they will return to business as normal, as they see it; that's why parliamentary reform has been dilatory and the shameless "bonuses are back" slogan is heard in banks, even after their semi-nationalisation.
The third pillar of our public-sector greed culture is the BBC. The signs are that the public stick will eventually discipline Parliament and the City into behaving in a better manner than sponging off the state, which means us. So it must and will be for the BBC.
Comments: 13
Time after time I read articles on this subject and they provoke exactly the same response, vis-a-vis, objections to paying the licence fee, (tax). Look, good readers: I'll point out once more that if you all stop paying today, you will have put an end to this abuse. I stopped my standing order almost a year ago and have received a nasty letter every month since. Come on you lot, start giving me some support.
Please, please will the mobs rise up and join Charles Moore and me in sending our Licence fees to Help the Aged? Until the Beeb returns to core broadcasting and the real world they'll not see a penny from me.
If the BBC announced that no-one (sleb presenter, back-room exec, no-one) would get paid more than say �150k pa, what would happen? They wouldn't all be able to move to "star" jobs on other terrestrial channels - there aren't enough vacancies and the "market rate" at ITV would suddenly drop too. The "sleb presenter" would hardly to a Richard-and-Judy and disappear to a sattelite station in the wilderness. And if they did all disappear, I'm sure the replacements would be more than competent. Look at Carol Vordemann - �900k a year for reading aloud letters and numbers. The new girl does just as well for �100k.
@Philip Alsop, 8.47 Google "implied right of access". You may be surprised, and possibly enriched, by the results.
Lucy Adams, Director BBC People (Personnel Dept to ordinary mortals) 320,000 per annum 320,000/52 weeks = 6,153.85 week 6,153.85/5 days = 1,230.70 day Anyone care to justify this level of remuneration? What exactly does she do that warrants such excessive compensation? Anyone care to explain? How about another tv licence funded millionaire? Mark Thompson, Director General (allegedly) 834,000 per annum (+ expenses) I'll leave others to the calculation. How many will be prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts today, this week, this month, this year for tv licence nonpayment? How many will be arrested and jailed for nonpayment of the fines levied? Just because they couldn't afford to fund the BBC gravy train.
"Bankers and MP's show contrition" ? Does that mean they will repay the money they have stolen, ? Now that would be a true act of contrition, but it aint gonna happen. What they have they keep. At least the BEEB still manages to turn out world class radio and TV programmes, Banksters shuffled paper and stole OUR money, MP's should be paying us, for the way they have brought our once great country to the bankrupt, clapped out state that is the UK to-day.
If the BBC won't prune the branches itself (and it's not just grotesque salaries but non-jobs right at the top) then it must not be surprised if someone chops down the whole tree. To start with, it needs a new DG who understands about programme making.
Excellent article. The only recourse is to withold their funding, but clearly the politicians of neither party will do this. What is needed is organised resistance, otherwise TV Licensing pick us off individually, again using tax payers money. Any ideas?
I recently gave away my TV and bought a snappy 26" HD monitor instead. I can select the very best quality programmes on DVD(currently the classics The West Wing and Frasier) sans licence fee. If enough do likewise the BBC will implode financially. If the Tories haven't the basic strategic sense to rid us of the BBC, then we must do it ourselves. NB. You can of course watch news items from almost any source on your PC and licence free. Even the dumbed down and nakedly biased drivel the BBC calls news, although why anyone does totally escapes me. JD
I am always amazed that the main excuse for having to pay such high salaries is because of "market forces". Let us say that the salary of the boss of the BBC was cut in half. He may decide to move to another organisation. Surely there will be a deputy or some other senior employee capable of taking the job for which the reduced pay could possibly be a very healthy increase. Furthermore if there is a mass exodus from the BBC there can only be a limited number of employers who can afford and want to employ them all.
The latest con by the BBC is the Impressions show on Saturday nights. Here we do not get a repeat as such but the same gag with very marginally different words. So we have the Safari guy eating the wrong bit of animal and falling off his log, Fiona Bruce stealing antiques, Ross Kemp on gangs etc. They are marginally funny the first time but by the third week they are intensely boring.
Nothing that a healthy dose of commercialism wouldn't cure. Future generations are living off the DVD, Internet and the XBox. They don't give a damn about TV. The BBC's days are numbered (as a publicly funded body anyway).
"In the wake of the BBC's fat-cat report, we hear that the corporation is unconcerned, because its own research shows that its salaries and expenses are way down the priority list of licence-payers. Apparently, the viewing public is more concerned with "repeats, quality of content, impartiality, swearing and bad language" than it is with executive pay. " Excuse me, who did the BBC research its own people, the families and friends of its employees or the man in the street and how were the questions posed? Such questionnaires can be massaged in such a way to provide the results that the organization wants and not what it might want to hear. If the BBC does not get a grip of pay and expenses of senior management, reduce overheads by reducing the number of employees, the use of taxis, sending tens or even hundreds of reporters and support staff around the world and so-called celebrities, then it is time someone, Government or Trust, removed the most senior levels 'pour encourage les autres'.
Post a comment
Read Full Article »