SPECTAT THE OR The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL
Telephone: 0171-405 1706; Fax 0171-242 0603
WHAT BIRT REFORMS?
Dinner ladies perform a vital function in society, which, like the army, marches on its stomach. This autumn, they will also be performing an important role for the BBC, which has set its most significant new autumn comedy series in a staff canteen in the Midlands. Only time will tell whether quality humour will be served with the mushy peas, but those who fear that Britain's public broadcaster is slowly dumb- mg down its output are unlikely to be reas- sured by the concept.
The Corporation's critics blame Sir John Birt, its sharp-suited director general. His ruthless Thatcherite free-market approach has, they argue, destroyed Lord Reith's spiritual legacy of quality and morality. In an attempt to save the BBC from privatisa- tion under the Conservatives, say the carpers, Sir John has destroyed his organi- sation's esprit de corps, replacing it with the law of the jungle.
This story of Auntie and the big bad Birt, however, is a myth. Far from being a ruth- lessly streamlined institution, in which Adam Smith's invisible hand is given free rein, the BBC is a complicated, badly run, Stalinist muddle. It has a huge central-plan- ning and policy-making staff, which pushes paper but makes no programmes. No pri- vate sector company could afford such an expensive, bureaucratic luxury. The 'inter- nal market' within the Corporation is hope- lessly rigged. 'Producer choice' has encour- aged the BBC's best people to leave, and then resell their ideas to their old employer for more money.
There are many employees on long-term contracts who enjoy working hours and conditions that are far more cushy and comfortable than anything in the private sector. At the same time, however, staff on temporary contracts are left in a constant state of nervous exhaustion by the need to reapply for their jobs, through a formal interview process, every few months. Far from being 'leaner and more efficient', as the director general claims in this year's annual report, Birtism has left the BBC hopelessly muddled about its aims, over- manned, chaotic and suffering from chroni- cally low morale. No wonder the pro- gramme quality has dropped.
Now the BBC is reported to be urging the government to allow it to increase its licence fee by well over the rate of infla- tion, past the £100 mark. This is not the answer. It needs to apply rigorous, private sector, commercial disciplines to its internal procedures and organisation. For a start, it should sack most of its planners and policy makers. Next, the ITV companies have sug- gested that instead of being self-regulated, as now, it should be subject to the Indepen- dent Television Commission, which regu- lates the commercial sector. This seems sensible; the ITC would provide a valuable independent check to ensure that the BBC was meeting its obligation to provide quali- ty programmes.
Whatever the future of the BBC, the quality of its output is paramount. If it con- tinues, as we believe it should, as a public service broadcaster, then its job is to pro- vide a quality benchmark that will, in the words of Michael Grade, 'keep the rest of us honest'. And if a future government and electorate were ever to decide to sell the Corporation, taxpayers will get the best pos- sible price by keeping up the quality. The commercial value of the BBC is partly in its people, but mostly in its brand. Across the world, it stands for well-made, intelligent programmes, a beacon of culture and intel- ligence on the airwaves. If it loses sight of that goal, then it is worthless in every sense.
Sir Richard Wilson went on television to help explain, or more accurately 'spin', Mr Jack Cunningham's becoming Whitehall 'en- forcer'. Sir Richard was in his shirtsleeves.
Few would wish to be stuffy about that. So it is up to us to be. The depiction of such a magnifico so informally is a telling image in this age of imagery. It is an image of Blairism: 'laid-back', non-establishment, and all that — though in reality today's establishment, in such redoubts as the City and Buckingham Palace, seems to have no fear of Blairism.
Blairism is always trying to co-opt the lot. That includes co-opting the higher mandar- Mate. The intention is to blur the distinction between the government — a party politi- cal body — and the rest of the constitution. Thus can fractious Tories be 'marginalised'. To be against the government can be depicted as being against government itself.
It is no job of the Cabinet Secretary to explain Cabinet reshuffles, even if the superficial argument can be advanced that this one affects his office. That is the job of the minister to whom both he and his office are responsible: the Prime Minister. The appointment of an 'enforcer' has nothing to do with government, and everything to do with politics. Mr Cunningham was brought in to help curb Mr Brown. A certain stuffi- ness, and distance from the low business of politics, is essential to a Cabinet Secretary. To preserve that distance, such an emi- nence should no more be thought of with- out his jacket than an American president without his trousers.
Previous page
