The BBC walks into another political row as it hands Entwistle £450,000

The corporation has exposed itself to the charge of "rewarding failure".

Update: Downing Street has now responded, saying that Entwistle's payoff is "hard to justify" but is a matter for his "conscience". As I said below, it is hard to see Entwistle prevailing at a time when the BBC's reputation has already been so damaged.

If the BBC wants to restore public confidence, it's hard to think of a worse move than handing George Entwistle, who resigned as director general after just 53 days in the job, a payoff of £450,000, the equivalent of a year's salary and double the contractually required amount. In her capacity as shadow media secretary, Harriet Harman has criticised the payout as "a reward for failure" and has urged Entwistle to "decline to accept any more than is required under his contract".

The government, wary of being seen to compromise the BBC's independence, has not commented, but Conservative MP John Whittingdale, who chairs the commons media committee, said that "people would be very surprised that somebody who was in the job for such a short period of time and then had to leave in these circumstances should be walking away with £450,000 of licence fee-payers' money." He also rejected the BBC's argument that the payout was justified since Entwistle would "continue to help on BBC business, most specifically the two ongoing inquiries." He said: "I wouldn't have thought that just because you have to help any inquiry into the Savile allegations you necessarily need to be paid such a large amount of money."

Some have defended the payout on the grounds that Entwistle did not bear primary responsibility for the scandal (and so deserves our sympathy) and that the frequency with which director generals are forced to resign - half of those appointed since 1982 have had to resign over BBC output - means the corporation must offer generous terms to its managers. But whether or not the payout is justified in principle, as a tactical move it's disastrous, a gift to the BBC's many enemies. Having previously forced RBS chief executive Stephen Hester to renounce his bonus, the politicians will fancy their chances of success. In the current climate, it is hard to see Entwistle prevailing.

A journalist is seen presenting in front of camera, outside the BBC's new Broadcasting House in central London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. What now?

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings.

That’s it. Ted Cruz bowed out of the Republican presidential race last night, effectively handing the nomination to Donald Trump. “From the beginning I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz said. “Tonight, I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed.”

What foreclosed his path was his sizeable loss to Trump in Indiana. Cruz had bet it all on the Hoosier State, hoping to repeat his previous Midwest victories in Iowa and Wisconsin. He formed a pact with John Kasich, whereby Kasich left the anti-Trump field clear for Cruz in Indiana in return for Cruz not campaigning in Oregon and New Mexico. He announced Carly Fiorina as his vice-presidential nominee last week, hoping the news would give him a late boost.

It didn’t work. Donald Trump won Indiana handily, with 53% of the vote to Cruz’s 37%. Trump won all of the state’s nine congressional districts, and so collected all 57 of the convention delegates on offer. He now has 1,014 delegates bound to him on the convention’s first ballot, plus 34 unbound delegates who’ve said they’ll vote for him (according to Daniel Nichanian’s count).

That leaves Trump needing just 189 more to hit the 1,237 required for the nomination – a number he was very likely to hit in the remaining contests before Cruz dropped out (it’s just 42% of the 445 available), and that he is now certain to achieve. No need to woo more unbound delegates. No contested convention. No scrambling for votes on the second ballot. 

Though Bernie Sanders narrowly won the Democratic primary in Indiana, he’s still 286 pledged delegates short of Hillary Clinton. He isn’t going to win the 65% of remaining delegates he’d need to catch up. Clinton now needs just 183 more delegates to reach the required 2,383. Like Trump, she is certain to reach that target on 7th June when a number of states vote, including the largest: California.

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings. But while Clinton is viewed favourably by 42% of voters and unfavourably by 55%, Trump is viewed favourably by just 35% and unfavourably by a whopping 61%. In head-to-head polling (which isn’t particularly predictive this far from election day), Clinton leads with 47% to Trump’s 40%. Betting markets make Clinton the heavy favourite, with a 70% chance of winning the presidency in November.

Still, a few questions that remain as we head into the final primaries and towards the party conventions in July: how many Republican officeholders will reluctantly endorse Trump, how many will actively distance themselves from him, and how many will try to remain silent? Will a conservative run as an independent candidate against Trump in the general election? Can Trump really “do presidential” for the next six months, as he boasted recently, and improve on his deep unpopularity?

And on the Democratic side: will Sanders concede gracefully and offer as full-throated an endorsement of Clinton as she did of Barack Obama eight years ago? It was on 7th June 2008 that she told her supporters: “The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.” Will we hear something similar from Sanders next month? 

Jonathan Jones writes for the New Statesman on American politics.