Been very busy so less blogging than desirable BUT I did listen to this hilarious exchange on Today this morning. It all concerns a report by Will Hutton (Be still, BBC beating hearts!) that public sector pay ratios should be capped at around 20;1. There is a wonderfully surreal socialist conversation (At the end of which Humphrys suggested sacking top private sector bosses, who are, as we all know, evil) and I couldn’t help but wonder why no one brought up the ratio between what some BBC assistanbt researcher might earm per annum compared to, oh I dunno, say a Radio 4 and BBC Mastermind presenter? To the nearest %.
RATIO KILLED THE BBC STAR…
Bookmark the permalink.
Private Eye has a less than flattering account of Mr Hutton’s term in charge of the Work Foudation. I have already passed on my copy but if anyone can dig out the current copy and list the financial blunders this man is accused of in just about destroying a profitable workers organization with very large assets-until he sold them off it might prove enlightening
Yes Hutton’s been on a lot recently. Why the bBC go to him for an opinion I don’t know.
Guido nailed him.
Because he shares their world view?
What one needs to understand is the difference between funding, and unique funding.
Then all, including rampant editorial by omission and hypocrisy, is easily explained.
Or, in the case, and words of Mr. H, such events can get ‘interpreted’ away, which is what he is there for.
There’s a paradigm of big business, that applies just as well to big government, big public broadcasters, etc.
It goes high executives have to be paid enormous salaries because otherwise the company can’t attract and keep the best.
Workers have to be paid low wages because otherwise the company can’t compete.
It extends into government and semi government that high executives have to be paid high salaries because otherwise they would find employment in the private sector.
An economist (sorry I don’t have further details) researched that the highest paid executive (aka Chairman of the Board) is almost always the largest shareholder. His conclusion being that the CoB keeps his fellow executives remuneration high to camouflage his own in front of the other shareholders. This allows him to benefit doubly from profits on the shares (mainly dividends) and salary.
If the private sector didn’t pay top wages to top talent business would not be generating the wealth to pay the taxes that fund the public sector.
Disagree. There is no proven connection between the remuneration of the top executives, in particular members of the board, and wealth creation.
The concept ignores:
1) The huge contribution of small/medium business to national wealth creation,
2) The relatively higher salaries of some companies, for example, in UK and USA and the much greater historical profits of companies in other regions, e.g. Japan and Korea,
3) The lack of link between the remuneration of top executives and the annual company bottom line. Put simply the top executives don’t take pay cuts when the company earns less. If an executive receives a bonus for an idea which when put into practise is a money loser he almost never is asked to refund it.
4) Golden parachutes when removing an incompetent top executive.
All this “excessive pay” of course has to be earned by the company first. Which it acheives only by making or doing something other people want and are freely willing to pay for. Provided the price paid is more than the cost of production, bingo, profit for the shareholders and investors, and jobs for everyone else, and tax revenue for the government.
Or perhaps these top people conspire to just get paid vast sums of money for doing nothing. Oooh its SOOO unfair.
I especially enjoyed Humphries refrain “what about public service”. Well what about it John? What is the proper public service rate for “the best job in journalism”? Indeed how much public money are you actually paid and how much of it should be confiscated as you advocate for “Bankers” with their top hats and cigars?
At least Humphries is an exceptionally good broadcaster. Unlike Webb to whom I am listening as he petulantly harangues and shouts down Jeremy Hunt in pursuit of the BBCs bizarre and wicked campaign to prevent cameron gaining any credit for the world cup.
Speaking of fathomless mediocrity – why do so many people accept this nonsense about the necessity of paying huge sums of money (in salaries made up by six figure HR bosses helpfully comparing their useless time-serving buddies to the senior management of the Ford Motor Company) or risk not being able to recruit people with the god-like skills of mark thompson, jana bennett and mark byford – to name just £2m pa of your money spent on people who are quite obviously utterly useless at their jobs?
Webb (I think it was him) was ridiculous this morning. On the morning of the world cup vote the Minister is rightly 100% focussed on the positivity of the bid. As he should be – one day, 3Bn up for grabs in addition to the positive effect on the nation. Instead Webb goes after tax issues, hooliganism etc. If I were the Minister I’d have told Webb I’d be happy to come back in a couple of days time to answer those legitimate questions, but today I’m focussed on winning this bid. Webb just ended up sounding like a petulent, petty idiot.
After Panorama attempted to hole our World Cup bid below the waterline other parts of the BBC have been desperate to either spread the sh*t (e.g. onto thick Brummies) or be reassured that Panorama will make no difference (e.g. whining Gary Richardson’s every interview in the past month)
PS re the reassurance, it was duly provided this morning by the BBC man within the FA, David Davies, in such emphatic terms that his BBC pension must have depended on it.
>>Webb just ended up sounding like a petulent, petty idiot.<<
How else do you keep your job on the TODAY programme?
I watched Sky News this morning and I left the house a lot less angry and a lot more knowledgeable about things going on that don’t involve, snow, world cup bids and the evil that is the coalition…
Great article heading 😀
What was actually learnt in 10.54 mins of discussion? Not much I dont think. The overarching tenor of the piece was, to my mind, clever Humphrys looking to see how he could best pour scorn, not, as is so often the case, to edify the public.
This time could have been used for a very interesting discussion on the difference between public sector and private sector ethos, how fulfulling a vocation with job security the private sector doesn’t have and from money that comes out of the wealth generating sector’s taxes means people are willing to forgo the higher earnings of private sector pay for the sake of public service.
None of this really came out in the piece. And no surprise when someone like John Humphrys is running it.
Humphrys is a very capable broadcaster perfectly capable of doing an excellent job facilitating debate to edify the public, but his overweening ego and political partisanship negate that possibility. I’d much rather have someone less capable but with professional integrity. I’ve caught a few of Justin Webb’s interviews and on the whole, despite his very partisan anti-American pedigree (playing to the BBC gallery for career advancement?) as the Beebs US correspendent, I find him asking questions I’d like asked, and acting with circumspection and civility in contrast to the overbearing boorishness of Humphrys and preening self-regard of Naughtie.
If Humphrys wants his own show on the BBC giving his take on the world from his left-wing perspective, then let him have it. I’m sure it would be very intersting radio/tv. But let there be a corresponding show with say Peter Hitchins given the same opportunity.
As it is, someone like Humphrys has no place in an impartial news organisation. His place in the BBC shows just what a corrupt organisation it is in desperate need of a thorough going purge at all levels to restore integrity.
We would need a new political party to bring that about.
Oh, I’d add that on feedback recently, despite the nation breathing a sigh of relief that at last TODAY has a presenter not so biased and lets people answer the questions he puts, Justin Webb said he is going to become more ‘robust’ in his interviews. I think maybe someone has had a quiet word in his ear, no doubt for the unstated reason that his interviews highlight just how biased and unfit Humphrys and Naughtie are
I agree with you about Humphrys – gifted and biased. Webb? I’ll reserve my opinion but I suspect it is impossible to get a “front-line” job at the BBC unless one buys into the BBC mind-set. I have yet to hear any item on Today which gives warmists a hard time or casts doubt on the saintliness of Binyam or Barack or allows that the regulators (ie the politicians particularly Brown) might have been as much – or more – to blame for the financial fiasco as bankers.
BTW remember that Hutton was appointed to this “independent” role by Osborne and Cameron. I don’t imagine that an incoming Labour administration would have appointed Liam Haligan to the same role. Why is anyone surprised that the message of this report commented on here http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/12/private-sector-is-real-source-of-unfair-pay-will-hutton-interim-report-on-fair-pay/ brings immense comfort to our civil “servants” and public sector parasites everywhere by coming to the unsurprising conclusion by Hutton – not the best economist in the world but reliably left-wing – that unfairness actually resides in the private sector rather than in the public one.
As HP writes, this was a missed opportunity for an interesting discussion on the public/private sector ethos, rather than a non-debate between a fifth rate economist and a public sector apparatchik (the Chief Executive of Waverley Borough Council). When “Chief Executives” in local government were “Town Clerks” we had the benefit of relatively efficient and certainly inexpensive local administration.
Even if Justin Webb is slightly less ego-driven than Humphrys or Naughtie, he’s still terrible. He constantly reveals his lack of knowledge or woeful misunderstanding of issues. Even in his recent interview with the President’s “spiritual adviser”, Webb had to be corrected several times because his personal bias against Christians clouded his judgment.
I have been idle and not read all the comments here. Sorry.
But I hope someone did ponder on the fact that the BBC’s best all being freelancers for tax reasons.
Of course you did, you ain’t stupid.
Not to mention how many of the radio stars themselves actually own the production companies which the BBC pays to put their shows on the air. This can lead to complications, such as Russell Brand.