Featured Posts

Chase Bank Limits Cash Withdrawals, Bans International... Before you read this report, remember to sign up to for 100% free stock alerts Chase Bank has moved to limit cash withdrawals while banning business customers from sending...

Read more

Richemont chairman Johann Rupert to take 'grey gap... Billionaire 62-year-old to take 12 months off from Cartier and Montblanc luxury goods groupRichemont's chairman and founder Johann Rupert is to take a year off from September, leaving management of the...

Read more

Cambodia: aftermath of fatal shoe factory collapse... Workers clear rubble following the collapse of a shoe factory in Kampong Speu, Cambodia, on Thursday

Read more

Spate of recent shock departures by 50-something CEOs While the rising financial rewards of running a modern multinational have been well publicised, executive recruiters say the pressures of the job have also been ratcheted upOn approaching his 60th birthday...

Read more

UK Uncut loses legal challenge over Goldman Sachs tax... While judge agreed the deal was 'not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue', he ruled it was not unlawfulCampaign group UK Uncut Legal Action has lost its high court challenge over the legality...

Read more

A new John Birt wouldn’t be the boss any more at Patten’s BBC

Category : Business

The future of broadcasting looks so tumultuous that some say the corporation needs a visionary like Lord B. But how would he or she handle being monitored by a powerful Lord P?

There’s no sense of a dying of the light as Mark Thompson, announcing “Project Barcelona” and taking shrewd pot shots at press detractors, plays out his last few months as BBC director general. This is a man of ambition thinking of his next big job. But Barcelona itself – the ability to download BBC programmes moments after they’ve been broadcast – intrinsically makes a point that corporation watchers are stressing. The pace of technical change is so fast, the surrounding competition so fast, that surely the BBC’s next DG must be a visionary-cum-reformer in the mould of… well, John Birt?

That argument – from the shrewd Steve Hewlett, among others – sets pigeons flapping hard over Langham Place. Birtism lives again? You might as well ordain a new Thatcher era. But even raising the idea defines something important that’s changed.

Let’s agree John Birt did some valuable, if unpopular, things in his DG time. Let’s also agree that Duke Hussey, when chairman of the governors, was right to recruit him. But then also remember that Hussey’s old job is not what today’s chairman of the BBC Trust, Chris Patten, is all about. The trust – stepping in to save 6Music, rescue some of Asian Network and defend local radio – is not a partner for the DG and his colleagues, but a monitor and arbiter. And Lord Patten, very clearly, sees that as a new and in many ways superior role.

Would the John Birt of old have relished such a relationship? Can any new candidate be expected to take on Patten and colleagues in pursuit of his or her vision? Remember who makes the appointment, after all: Lord P (as in primus inter pares).

■ There are tender eulogies to the old BBC World Service as the removal vans cluster outside Bush House. Life won’t seem the same in the brand new integrated newsroom at Broadcasting House, funded all too soon from the licence fee rather than William Hague’s FO budget. Nevertheless, let’s not doubt a BBC desire to keep its flag flying high.

What’s more difficult, a year or two down the line, is seeing how such desire will fare once the brutal questions are asked. Do you, the licence payer, want the horseracing you follow to be part of the programming you pay for – or reporting to Burma and Pakistan that you can’t see or hear? Do you want drama on BBC4 – or Persian language TV?

The difficulty with dilemmas like these is that they’re inevitable, with an infinitely predictable outcome over time. If governments from Paris to Moscow want to put over their version of events to the world, they reach for their chequebooks. If the US, through its Voice of America, wishes to spread Washington’s enlightenment, then Congress knows well enough who has to pay. Only in Britain will you find governments believing that the BBC – and thus ordinary viewers and listeners – must be prepared to dig deep in their pockets to finance programmes that barely register in UK parlours. It’s a pleasing, altruistic belief. But come back in five years’ time to see, probably sadly, if it’s rubbish.

The great and good shall inherit the media regulators

Category : Business

All the watchdogs seem to be led by ex-politicians or mandarins. Many of them do a splendid job – but are they really independent of government?

The word of the moment is “independent”, signalling a wondrous purity of heart and intent. But watch lead counsel at the Leveson inquiry curl a sardonic lip when told that prospective members of a self-regulatory press body (ie, the PCC) can be asked if they believe in self-regulation before they are appointed. Independence or built-in bias? And here comes Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom, laying out the basic requirements of his business: “Independence of political influence, independence from those regulated in governance and decision-making and clear, transparent processes” (among other necessary virtues). Now scratch your head.

If you have read Lord Rees-Mogg’s autobiography, you may remember a scene where Sir Ian Trethowan, Tory-friendly BBC director-general, asks William to be the new deputy chairman of his governors. No, says Mogg, it’s chairman or nothing, and off Trethowan trots to consult with the Iron Lady – who privately promises Mogg the top job once the then chairman, George Howard, packs up. Fortunately for William, the Arts Council slides his way before Howard’s term ends, so the private pledge isn’t redeemed. But ponder that episode on the Richards or Leveson sanctity scale. Transparency? Independence of political influence?

Of course, things have changed since 1983. The committee on standards in public life has given the whole appointments scene a dusting. But it’s still interesting to examine the candidates who receive a final nod. Chris (now Lord) Patten, chairman of the BBC Trust: a man of many jobs and talents, but the underpinning of them all is his previous life as a Conservative MP, minister, then party chairman. Richards himself: former senior policy adviser to Tony Blair, plucked from No 10 as the great governance game rolled on. And remember whom Ed succeeded at Ofcom: Stephen Carter, transferred to Downing Street by Gordon Brown as chief of strategy before becoming Labour’s minister for broadband dreams (and member of the Lords). Sir Michael Lyons, Patten’s (Labour-appointed) predecessor at the BBC Trust, had been a Labour councillor. Gavyn Davies, last chair of the (doomed) BBC governors, spent long evenings waiting for his wife to come home from running Gordon Brown’s office in the Treasury.

Over at ITV, you’ll find Archie Norman, ex-Asda, ex-Tory MP, at the helm. At Channel 4, Lord (Terry) Burns, most ubiquitous of retired civil servants. At the Advertising Standards Authority, Lord (Chris) Smith, once Labour’s arts minister. At a PCC striving for survival, Lord Hunt, former Tory cabinet minister, who succeeded Baroness Buscombe, former Tory frontbencher in the Lords, who succeeded Sir Christopher Meyer, once No 10 spokesman for John Major, who succeeded Lord Wakeham, the grandest of Tory fixers.

Is there a pattern here? Of course. Not one, for the avoidance of doubt, in which any of the named above are political puppets. They sometimes (see Davies) walked the plank when Whitehall pushed too hard. They could never allow considerations of HMG policy towards a threatening Tehran to influence their decision on dumping poor Press TV. The announcement that Patten is taking recruitment agency advice on how to appoint a new DG must be taken at face value.

But there is a sense of where the media regulators of UK plc look to instinctively as they ponder what comes next. They’re all retired politicians or civil servants. They are appointed, then appoint for themselves under quasi-civil-service rules.

They often do a splendid job. Let’s praise Patten again. Add how diligently Hunt has embarked on his task. But independent, in Richards’s full sense? Statutorily installed or not, they are there because they know the system, perhaps wield residual influence, understand which levers to pull. Their very existence often hints at jobs to come for today’s ministers or mandarins.

It’s an informal system, then, whether statutory or independent. It involves only a certain kind of player, with predictable attributes. Those players may be – indeed, often are – good hearts and true. But their eyes are automatically turned not outward to the public waiting at the door, but inwards towards Westminster and Whitehall, where lobbying behind closed doors begins. “Is this ‘independence’?” you can almost hear learned counsel demanding. Up to a point, my Lord Justice Copper.