BT Chief To Become British Government Minister

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BT Chief To Become British Government Minister

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @03:44AM from the revolving-door dept.

judgecorp writes "BT chief Ian Livingston is leaving the British telecom provider to become a government minister. The executive has been appointed a seat in the House of Lords, which enables him to become Minister for Trade and Investment without having to be elected as a Member of the lower house of Parliament. Livingston has seen BT go from a £134 million loss in 2008 when he was appointed, to a profit of £2.5 billion in 2012. It still has a monopoly over certain sectors of the British telecom market, and has won all the contracts so far for rolling out broadband to rural areas."

47 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:This is good for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 03:47 · Score: 0

Not really. I don't think there is much love lost between GOOG and the telecommunication companies. Other than, I guess they sell them a lot of handsets via Motorola Mobility.
What an absolute c--t.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 03:50 · Score: 0

I've had the misfortune to have to deal with this Ian guy and he's an UTTER UTTER c--t.
BT is a disgraceful company and the amount of people in the company I work for who have needed to use BT and been royally screwed over by them is shocking.
At least he's leaving BT and going in to government where this behavior is expected I guess.
1. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by FreeUser · 2013-06-19 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I've had the misfortune to have to deal with this Ian guy and he's an UTTER UTTER c--t.
  BT is a disgraceful company and the amount of people in the company I work for who have needed to use BT and been royally screwed over by them is shocking.
  At least he's leaving BT and going in to government where this behavior is expected I guess.
  As a dual British citizen, I can only say this:
  his appointment to the House of Lords is a strong argument in favour of getting rid of the undemocratic House of Lords, or at least making it an elected body.
  
  --
  The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
2. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by nojayuk · 2013-06-19 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I had occasion recently to look at the makeup of the Lords Science and Technology Select committee. Approximately half of them are Fellows of the Royal Society. The committee includes notables like the world-famous embryology researcher Robert Winston as well as other high flyers in the science and high-tech world. The chairman is Lord Krebs who has headed up the Food Standards Agency as well as the NERC in the past. His day job is Principal of Jesus College, Oxford. Being a member of the House of Lords is not regarded as a "real" job, they get paid a daily allowance if they attend the Chamber during a sitting and/or take part in committee work.
  On the other hand the US Senate committee on Science etc. has three times the number of members of the Lords committee. Most of these elected representatives have been professional politicians for their entire adult life and have never been anywhere near a science or research establishment, never mind working in one. The current chairman is Jay Rockefeller, a fourth-generation scion of one of America's ruling families who has been in the Washington "bubble" since election to the Senate in 1984. US Senators get paid $174,000 per annum for the 150 days a year they are supposed to turn up at the Capitol plus expenses, staffs etc. and a very generous care package (medical, pension etc.).
3. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by klapaucjusz · 2013-06-19 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  As a dual British citizen, I can only say this:
  his appointment to the House of Lords is a strong argument in favour of getting rid of the undemocratic House of Lords, or at least making it an elected body.
  So you say that only professional politicians should be able to hold government positions?
  For anyone who's lost -- the United Kingdom has this strange political system where you need to be a member of the legislative branch in order to serve on the national executive: only members of parliament can be ministers of Her Majesty's government. This would appear to imply that it is impossible to appoint a specialist as minister, since only professional politicians have a chance to be elected to parliament; in practice, appointment to the Lords is used as a workaround.
4. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  There is already a branch of the government that is tasked with recruiting the best and the brightest in their industry to drive the minute of each department, it's called the bureaucracy. Most governments can appoint the head of each department and they generally use an expert from within their political sphere.
  This has the added benefit of refreshing the experts in each election cycle to those who match the popular view, whereas unelected upper house members stay forever and are appointed based on random vacancies which results in stacking the house with everlasting political views that were relevant at only one particular point in time.
5. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by H0p313ss · 2013-06-19 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  As a dual British citizen, I can only say this:
  his appointment to the House of Lords is a strong argument in favour of getting rid of the undemocratic House of Lords, or at least making it an elected body.
  So you say that only professional politicians should be able to hold government positions?
  For anyone who's lost -- the United Kingdom has this strange political system where you need to be a member of the legislative branch in order to serve on the national executive: only members of parliament can be ministers of Her Majesty's government. This would appear to imply that it is impossible to appoint a specialist as minister, since only professional politicians have a chance to be elected to parliament; in practice, appointment to the Lords is used as a workaround.
  Which, as someone else has pointed out, means that a member of the House of Lords is statistically more likely to be actually useful than any elected politician anywhere.
  Go figure.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
6. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by icebike · 2013-06-19 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  or anyone who's lost -- the United Kingdom has this strange political system where you need to be a member of the legislative branch in order to serve on the national executive: only members of parliament can be ministers of Her Majesty's government. This would appear to imply that it is impossible to appoint a specialist as minister, since only professional politicians have a chance to be elected to parliament; in practice, appointment to the Lords is used as a workaround.
  Ah, that explains a lot. Being the product of a public school education in the US it was always mystifying why there was this house of lords composed of appointed members. We were induced to believe it was the Monarchy's last hold on government power, but I guess our teachers were reluctant to suggest it existed only to prop up the good old boy appointments.
  Of course, in the US, Senators were appointed by State Legislatures in the original configuration of the Constitution. This was in deference to the fact that the country was a Union of previously independent States, and the Senate was to represent the interests of these States.
  Such was undone by the 17th Amendment which instituted direct election of senators.
  There is a large and growing school of thought which suggests this was a huge mistake, and the beginning of the end of the States having any power or significance to any aspect of government beyond road maintenance.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Hognoxious · 2013-06-19 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  I've had the misfortune to have to deal with this Ian guy and he's an UTTER UTTER c--t.
  his appointment to the House of Lords is a strong argument in favour of getting rid of the undemocratic House of Lords, or at least making it an elected body.
  Indeed. It's a scientific fact that nobody in the elected House of Commons is an utter cunt at all. Not even one of them, a little bit round the edges.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Hognoxious · 2013-06-19 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  only members of parliament can be ministers of Her Majesty's government.
  Nonsense. The prime minister (who doesn't necessarily have to be an MP either) chooses his cabinet.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
9. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by rahvin112 · 2013-06-19 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Before the passing of the 17th the senate was a den of corruption that made things like the Mexican federal police seem downright uncorruptable. There is not a large and growing school of thought that the 17th was a mistake. There is a campaign being waged by Rupert Murdoch and his media properties to rewrite history and convince people the 17th was a bad idea. Afterall, if the Senate is appointed Republicans would have control (more red states than blue) and being appointees they would be much easier for large commercial interests to control.
  I'll never cease to be amazed at how many people take a propaganda campaign waged by a media conglomerate in cooperation with a political party as a grass roots "school of thought".
10. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  Being the product of a public school education in the US it was always mystifying why there was this house of lords composed of appointed members.
  
  That's not down to your education, it's down to the fact that you're an idiot.
11. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by icebike · 2013-06-19 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  Afterall, if the Senate is appointed Republicans would have control (more red states than blue) and being appointees they would be much easier for large commercial interests to control.
  Its a lot more difficult and expensive to control 50 state legislatures so that you can control appointments to the Senate than it is to just dump money into a campaign war chest to re-elect the same bozos over and over again. People elect their own state legislates, and big national corporations don't have a lot of local sway. The corruptions of the past have been traded tor the corruptions of the present, which are a lot more pernicious and deep seated. A senator in the past was always "beholdin" to his legislature in his own state. Now there is no guarantee they will even do the bidding of their constituents. But its a virtual certainty they will do the bidding of big corporations from whom they get their campaign funds. If you can't see this your naivete knows no bounds.
  It has nothing to do with Murdoch. The scholarly objections to the 17th have been around since before WWII.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
12. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by klapaucjusz · 2013-06-19 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  only members of parliament can be ministers of Her Majesty's government.
  Nonsense. The prime minister (who doesn't necessarily have to be an MP either) chooses his cabinet.
  Wikipedia has been known to be wrong before, but it appears to confirm what I've always been told:
  
  The Government Ministers are all members of Parliament, and are accountable to it.
  [...]
  For most senior Ministers this is usually the elected House of Commons rather than the House of Lords. There have been some recent exceptions to this [...]
  
  I'd love to hear otherwise from a reliable source.
13. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Roger+W+Moore · 2013-06-19 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  his appointment to the House of Lords is a strong argument in favour of getting rid of the undemocratic House of Lords, or at least making it an elected body.
  Really? You think the people we elect to the house of commons are any better?
14. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Pino+Grigio · 2013-06-19 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmmmm. As a BT customer for 7 years, I can honestly say they're always given me great service. My broadband has never been down. I can't get cable but had Infinity installed a few months back and it's brilliant. Whenever I've spoken to people on the phone they've always been courteous, efficient and solved my issues more or less right away.
  
  As a customer, I'm very happy with them. Don't know this guy personally and to be honest, I couldn't care less if he's an UTTER UTTER (whatever). As long as I get a service I'm happy with, it's all good.
15. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by strack · 2013-06-19 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  its more that only elected officials should have the power to pass or halt the making of bills into law
16. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by rb12345 · 2013-06-19 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  Wikipedia looks to be more misleading than wrong in this case. It seems to be using "member of Parliament" to mean members of either House, whereas the term "Member of Parliament" is pretty much reserved for members of the House of Commons. In short, you can be a "member of Parliament" without being a "Member of Parliament"...
17. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  don't forget to add all the "very generous" lobbyist kick backs, which prevent anyone with actual knowledge in science to BE the committee
18. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  On the otherhand, these people are there own masters. there is no question of the goverment firing them for giving advice they don't like, like the guy who spoke about drugs over here in the uk.
  this is an inderpendent look at things, and the same goes for much of the upper house. The patronage of the US system kinda worrys me to be honste.
19. Re:What an absolute c--t.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  your kind of right, but not realy. the queen choose the priminster. the queen chooses whoever she thinks has the best chance of forming a goverment. a goverment is formed from the memebers of the house of commons and the house of lords. whilst she theorticly has the perogotive to choose anyone, in practice, she now chooses the person who commands a majority in the commons, or failing that, the person who commands the largest faction, or, failing that, the leader of the next largest faction, and so on. the person is typicaly the leader of the party in command of the commons, and although this may, from time to time, not be the case, this is usualy rectifed (john major quit as party leader to get re-elected to that post, and was priminster and head of the cabinet during this time, although once the party leadership contest was over, he would have resined and the new head of the conservtives would have become priminster).
  the uk is wired, becous to know how things must be, you have to look at how there done. no rule book for us.
What a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 03:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

The worst telecom company in the UK sends its CEO to the government to become a top minister? Talk about regulatory capture...
1. Re:What a disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Still cant get > 1mbit/sec ADSL in a suburb in the home counties (30 miles from London). Technical help is non existent, I have to call an engineer and risk paying $95 if it's 'my fault' - I'm using their equipment!
  BT are a shower. I'm off as soon as my deal runs out.
2. Re:What a disaster by icebike · 2013-06-19 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to be a bit of that nonsense going around lately. Obama did the same sort of thing nominating a telcom lobbyist as FCC chairman. .
  Once might be construed as a good old boy political debt payback, but twice seems to suggest that the Telcom industry is making a concerted effort to get their minions into key regulatory positions.
  This does not bode well for the consumer.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:What a disaster by marnues · 2013-06-19 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Who would you suggest for the position?
Re:This is good for Google by petermgreen · 2013-06-19 04:01 · Score: 2

Note that BT spun off their mobile phone operation in late 2001.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:This is good for Google by cheesybagel · 2013-06-19 04:04 · Score: 0

What a wondrous manager. To increase profits with a telecoms monopoly. Like that is a difficult thing to do. All he needed to do was raise prices.
Will this affect his fighting fantasy books? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 04:04 · Score: 0

I guess we still have Steve Jackson to take these forward?
Nothing different across the pond. by LeepII · 2013-06-19 04:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

Nice to see the UK government is just as corrupt and for sale as the US one.
How did he get the job? by fustakrakich · 2013-06-19 04:53 · Score: 2

Blackmail. He probably has a small list of who else besides Blair is banging Murdoch's old lady.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:This is good for Google by cheesybagel · 2013-06-19 05:04 · Score: 1

Misery for 10 million households as BT raises prices.
BT's 6% landline price rise.
Re:next GOP proposal? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 05:18 · Score: 0

Where have you been? Big corporations and the U.S. federal government have had a revolving door for top people for at least a century.
BT's profits next year... by CaptainOfSpray · 2013-06-19 05:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

...will include several hundred million GBP that they will get for selling off land around the Adastral Park "Research" site. That's land that was compulsorily purchased for an RAF airfeld, which was ultimately "given" to BT. So it's taxpayer's land. BT has been leaning on the local council to rewrite their land use policies to allow the farmland to be built on. They intend to build a new town of 2000 homes right next to a European Special Protection Area that is also an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (think National Park, without the planning restrictions).

The land value will go from 6,000 GBP per acre to at least 500,000 per acre when BT get planning permission. And the worst bit is that this kind of house building is exactly what the district does NOT need - we need new housing in all the scattered villages where low-income people live and work, instead of in one place where are no jobs.

Please can we stop tarmacing over the entire f**king world?

--
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
Re:This is good for Google by Hognoxious · 2013-06-19 06:21 · Score: 1

To increase profits with a telecoms monopoly. Like that is a difficult thing to do. All he needed to do was raise prices.
A-ha, an alumnus of DeVry's economics program.
You might want to do some supplementary reading on elasticity.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Congratulations unpaid lord by Sir_Sri · 2013-06-19 06:32 · Score: 1

Being a member of the house of lords allows him to be an unpaid member of the government, is a common political appointment in both the british and canadian systems (House of Lords or the Senate, but the same basic function). A UK cabinet minister from the house of lords collects about 110k pounds a year. When he gets turfed from government (as they all do eventually) he won't get paid anything unless he chairs a committee, or a couple of other things. But he will get to call himself Lord. Which is part of the perks of the appointment.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m06.pdf
Considering the head of BT was paid 8.5 million pounds for 2012 that's a bit of a pay cut.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/23/bt-ian-livingston-pay-share-price
Re:This is good for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-19 07:05 · Score: 0

Oh my god! You managed to save two characters by using Google's stock ticker name. Congratulations on your typing efficiency!
Correlation != causation? by biodata · 2013-06-19 07:14 · Score: 1

Interesting that this happens the day ofter the secret porn summit between the government and ISPs. I wonder if he took part in that meeting?

--
Korma: Good