Should the BBC boss be paid five times salary of the PM?

Mark Thompson needs to enter the real world.

By James Macintyre Published 04 July 2010 17:36

Iain Dale has rightly highlighted this absurdity regarding the pay of the director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson:

Andrew Marr to Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC: "You're paid five times what the Prime Minister is . . .

And answer came there none. Instead he wittered on about recruiting a new controller of Radio 4.

Mark Thompson earns £834,000 a year, I believe.

It is now completely undeniable, especially in the age of Tory "austerity" about which the BBC is so excited, that the corporation must eneter the real world and start doing some serious cutting of its own.

It is simply wrong that the corporation employs so many people, on such high salaries, and clings to an outdated expenses system which, I happen to know, is badly abused.

More from James Macintyre

13 comments

Mon, 2010-07-05 01:38 — Ricardo1

Thomas' salary is obscene, but the pay of some BBC talent (Ross for example) is even more extreme.

And I don't personally understand why we pay this much to people in the public sector. The BBC is trying too hard to compete with the private sector, which is completely defeating the whole point of it's existence. Surely a publicly financed broadcaster would be more effective in delivering to us less popular things that aren't commercially viable and leaving things that are to commercial broadcasters.

For instance. Why is the world cup, premiership highlights, Wimbledon, F1 on the BBC? Wouldn't it be better if commercial channels broadcast these things and the public broadcaster stuck to minority sports to help boost their profile in a footy obsessed country?

Same goes for spending money on Eastenders which could be spent on the arts.

I would suggest a reorganisation, so that while BBC 1, BBC2, Radio 1 and Radio 2 remain publicaly owned, they have advertising don't receive a penny of TV licences. That way they can pay as much as they want for talent and rights as it isn't our money, while BBC3 and BBC4 and all other radio stations on the other hand become purely for the public, then they'll have more money for to spend on minority interests.

Also BBC can take risks on programmes by putting them on BBC3/4 to start with, then if they take off and become popular they can be promoted to BBC1/2, allowing the people behind the show to earn more.

Mon, 2010-07-05 10:36 — Ona

Agreed. I watch BBC about once a week. It is currently not worth the license fee and is politically biased whilst pretending not to be. Mark Thompson is the biggest mistake of all and should go. If we are going to have publicly funded broadcasting it shouldn't line people's pockets - do something else instead.

Mon, 2010-07-05 11:57 — alan (not verified)

So the bloke who commissions such great programmes as the ones involving Webber,Ross,the deeply unfunny Norton countless other mindless shows to banal to mention gets paid 800k.

Its time dear old BBC to get real and start living in this new world that you're so fond of telling everyone we now live in the age of cuts so yeah get rid of this lad and many of the over priced cronies that haunt the BBC and do it soon.

That or sell it off(and i think that only a matter of time)becuase for me at the moment the beeb just sint worth the fee we all have to pay and it hasnt been for many years i have to agree with Ricardo's points it needs a massive reorganisation but will it come? i highly doubt it.

Mon, 2010-07-05 13:22 — writeoff (not verified)

Publishing salaries will cause so much of an outcry that they will lose some big names, and that would for the most part be beneficial. Becoming a familiar face on the Beeb has been a lifetime meal-ticket for too long and it feeds the pro-establishment bias of the organisation. Who needs Marr and Esler anyway?

Mon, 2010-07-05 13:09 — iainburnshill

Let the BBC sell its services to us commercially. It would be a delight only to pay for news, opera and ballet, and not for Graham Norton. Why do all governments operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Simply impose salary cuts.

Sun, 2010-07-18 00:46 — spock (not verified)

the bbc tv license isnt even worth half of its current value. americans laugh that the brits need to pay a yearly license to watch a tv, and quite rightly so. bbc bosses earning more than 4x the wage of the Prime Minister? thats laughable, yet ironically, getting the bbc to reduce its license in any form however will be virtually impossible, unless forced to by the government.

it would be like asking a monkey to give us back the bananas we handed to it 2 minutes ago. its never going to happen. less of a license means less of a wage for them, so thats not going to make the bbc and its bosses happy monkeys at all.

if there ever is a major change in the license fee, dont expect it to happen in your lifetime without PM involvement. despite the fact that times are changing with technology, and we now have far more channels unrelated to the bbc to choose from, even forced major change from arguably one of the greediest british companies currently in operation will be likely to only happen over a very long period of time indeed.

Sun, 2010-07-18 09:58 — Nick (not verified)

It's high time that all of these fat cat salaries were reviewed. It's not just the BBC, there are so many corporations and firms that overpay crazy sums to people who don't deserve or need what they get paid.

'We're in it together' so they say, 'it's the era of austerity' is what we hear; so isn't time that we realised that there is now a need to bring to an end the days of over inflated salaries.

'There's no money left', so they say. There is, it's just all in the wrong place. It stands to reason that if these ghastly salaries were cut, there would be more money to go around. No doubt people will say this would be politics based on envy, I completely disagree, it's just about a bit of fairness and a more evenly spread distribution of our wealth.

Instead of hugely fat salaries to the isolated few at the top, introduce more profit sharing to those who do the real work. The results would do far more to increase productivity, the effect of which is that we'd wake up to a realisation that the big chiefs don't need to be paid anywhere near what they are.

It's not just the BBC, it's become a widespread culture that is no longer appropriate to today's society.

Sun, 2010-07-04 18:49 — IH (not verified)

Well, this is a first - I actually agree with you 100%!!

Sun, 2010-07-04 19:44 — swatantra nandanwar

No. Sack them all and get someone cheaper. Surprisingly the quality of programmes will not suffer. We'll still have the best unbiased broadcastng service in Britain.

Sun, 2010-07-04 20:45 — Abby (not verified)

I agree absolutely with swatantra nandanwar.
We have an institution we are FORCED to contribute to yearly, we have no influnce on what it broadcasts, its biased politically, and we don't even get value for money most of the time. Its like Network railway directors who recently awarded themselves obscene bonuses, courtesy of us tax-payers, when the infrastructures are falling out around them and the staff that actually does all the hard work are still paid £5.80ph.
All these institutions are looking like something from semi-civilized, non-democratic Countries.