The Metro has reported today that pay cuts are winging their way to the BBC management. It’s about time too! For too long has the BBC been riding the proverbial gravy train, unwilling to slash its over-indulgent budget and curb its managers’ excessive perks. A firm hand is now needed to enforce cuts on the BBC so that it too takes its fair share of the national debt burden. These cuts come in the light of comments by the Corporation’s watchdog, which described top BBC salaries as ‘toxic.’
The cuts also come soon after the Will Hutton review, which reported on how to make public sector wages fairer. In 2009-2010, 74 senior managerial positions at the BBC received an annual salary of more than £160,000. These figures don’t even include the payment packages for BBC executives. According to the Metro, the BBC’s director-general, Mark Thompson, earned £838,000 in 2009-2010. This is a truly astonishing salary for a public sector position. Mark Thompson did argue however that the Corporation was struggling to fill senior managerial roles due to low wages. I understand; life must be difficult when you’re only earning just over £800,000 a year, one must often wonder where the next meal is coming from. Mark Thompson’s excuse for his own high salary is appalling when public sector workers are being laid off left, right and centre, many of whom have families and responsibilities. Why is it that the lowest paid and most vulnerable in the public sector are carrying the burden of national debt and not the BBC bosses?
Lord Patten has said that the proposals from the Will Hutton review should be implemented. This means an end to arbitrary salary benchmarks, such as comparisons to the Prime Minister’s pay. Instead, salaries should be linked to personal performance. For instance, a portion of wages for senior positions could be held back if those personnel fail to meet pre-arranged performance targets. Equally, those who perform beyond expectation should be eligible for bonuses in addition to their salary. Lord Patten hopes that the BBC would become more ‘flexible’ and ‘leaner.’ This could lead to it performing within its budget of £3.5billion, which is largely covered by the compulsory £145.50 licence fee.
If the BBC wants to protect its enviable compulsory licence fee, then it must show restraint. The BBC does not need to attract managers with high wages. The Corporation is one of the most prestigious and most prominent media organisations in the world and the abundant benefits and esteemed positions are enough to attract the best. The high salaries are inexcusable and the pitiful excuses for them are indefensible.
By James Kirwood
2 Responses to BBC bosses should be cut down to size
Leave a Reply
Join the Mailing List
Ironically this article really shows up the author’s very partial understanding of freedom. You end up arguing for more state interference. Is the Freedom Association really interested in freedom or just cuts in the public sector?
it would be easy for me to say the BBC should be independent, have no compulsory licence fee, no government subsidies… instead perhaps a voluntary subscription would be better. However, this was not the point of the article. The point was that while the BBC does receive government subsidies, while it insists on imposing a compulsory licence fee, it should be more responsible. The article merely attempts to give the BBC more credibility as a public institution by insisting that its management must take fair share of the national burden. This is not a case of private or public ownership or government censorship of media, it is about all public servants taking equal share of the cuts, which are, as we both know, necessary.