Chris Patten: BBC has more senior managers than the communist party

The chairman of the BBC Trust added that Rupert Murdoch's newspapers "were bound to question" his position, but the crisis could be solved by better management.

Chris Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, today told Andrew Marr that the BBC was facing its worst crisis since the Hutton Inquiry.

He said that "awful" journalism  had "disgraced" Newsnight, and therefore he understood why the director-general, George Entwistle, had resigned.

Marr asked him whether Entwistle's "car-crash interview" with John Humphreys on Radio 4's Today programme had contributed to his decision to leave. "You don't go on an interview with John Humphreys and expect the bowling to be slow full tosses," Patten replied.

"We're a news organisation and our credibility depends on telling the truth," he added.

Marr asked whether Entwistle's "lack of curiosity" about the incorrect Newsnight story was the problem. Patten agreed partially, adding "from the beginning… he was implicated in the crisis. He was director of vision when that first Newsnight programme went out".

However, he said, Entwistle was "cerebral, decent, honest, brave".

Asked about his own position, Patten said that it was "bound to be under question by Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, let's be clear about that". 

But he later added that opponents of the BBC "are fairly cagey about the way they talk about it" because of the corporation's wide public support. "It is one of the things which defines Britishness." 

As for the suggestion that Newsnight was "toast" - as presenter Eddie Mair suggested on Friday's programme - Patten said: "That's a rather quick judgment … at the heart of our journalism is good investigative, uncompromising journalism, and Newsnight been part of that tradition. We want to hold on to that. We want to make sure that Newsnight and other programmes are properly managed.

"It's obviously been compromised by the fact that senior executives were recused from involvement . . . [but] decisions about the programme went up through every damned layer [of management]".

After Andrew Marr complained about the existence of an out-of-touch "senior management group" at the corporation, Patten said that he had always joked there were "more senior leaders at the BBC than in the Chinese communist party" but that it had worked to change itself.

The BBC Trust chairman promised to appoint a replacement for Entwistle within weeks, and not to let the corporation become too risk-averse. 

Chris Patten on Andrew Marr's programme.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.