In the aftermath of Richard Sharp’s resignation as chair of the BBC and Boris Johnson’s humiliation as the man who caused the defenestration of yet another who got too close, there is a warning to be voiced: be careful what you wish for.
Sharp was obviously and hopelessly conflicted by his failure to declare a connection to an £800,000 loan guarantee for Johnson during his interview for the prime post.
In announcing his departure, Sharp decided that this “inadvertent” error with its “potential perceived conflict of interest” (as opposed to an actual conflict, presumably) could prove a “distraction from the corporation’s good work” if he carried on.
And that somewhat disdainful statement said everything we need to know about what he really thought of the rigour of a process in which he, perceived by many – including himself – to be the best man for the job, ended up resigning. It says he knew best then and still does now.
Many at the BBC wonder why, if he really cared so much about the scandal proving a “distraction,” Sharp waited so many reputation-zapping months to announce his departure: months during which the political independence of the BBC management both at home and abroad was undermined.
The affair speaks volumes about a public appointments process and governance structure; both are unfit for purpose. Low morale within the corporation has focused not just on the political appointments system, which has long bedevilled the BBC, but a governance system introduced after 2016 in which the broadcaster is both governed and managed by a combined unitary board.
The decision by the board to describe Sharp as a “person of integrity” in the immediate aftermath of his resignation prompted some mockery among staffers.
But board members also called him “a real advocate for the BBC”, and there is some truth there. By several accounts, he was an enthusiastic chair, not only taking delight in going behind the scenes on television shows but using his connections within the corridors of power to champion the BBC and support its aims.
And after him, what next? Gallows humour lists all the conservative types currently considered rather underemployed. Nadine Dorries? Dominic Cummings? Maybe even Robbie Gibb, who might not let Emily Maitlis’s accusation that he was an “active agent of the Conservative party” deter him from moving up from board member to the big chair. Post-Sharp, things could be so much better, or so much worse.
But whatever happens, the system that appoints a successor must change. The investigation by Adam Heppinstall KC found that Johnson had effectively made it known that Sharp was the only man for the job, at least after his first choice, the former Telegraph editor and columnist and rightwinger Charles Moore, ruled himself out. This whiff of chumocracy meant that few people of any merit even bothered to apply.
By standing down early, Sharp allows his old financial controller and close colleague Rishi Sunak to appoint the next chair for a full four-year term, leaving them in situ no matter the result of the next election. The government is expected to appoint Sharp’s successor this summer, less than the time it took Heppinstall to investigate the rule breach.
There is opportunity here: there would be no shortage of applications to join a truly open public appointments commission full of cross-party experts. The details would need to be discussed but there should be no one person with overall control, in order to avoid the situation where the existing commissioner for public appointments, William Shawcross, had to recuse himself from examining this particular appointment because he knew Sharp too well to be considered truly impartial.
Sharp’s resignation statement may have been disdainful, but he did genuinely believe what he also said in his exit statement, that the BBC is an “incredible, dynamic and world-beating creative force, unmatched anywhere”.
It is a force that must remain above politics of left or right if it is to survive – and it needs a leader who truly thinks the same
Jane Martinson is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
