The Tate, the FT editor and a question of ethics

IT WAS last week that my colleague Sebastian Shakespeare opined that when it came to ‘naked self-aggrandisement, brass neck and eye-watering double standards, the machinations of the British establishment’ were ‘ truly wondrous to behold’.

He was referring to the rum old saga of Financial Times editor Lionel Barber being appointed chairman of the Tate art galleries.

Barber, a man not much given to selfdoubt, had spent nearly a year as acting interim chairman of Tate, tasked with finding a new chairman, before — with awesome chutzpah — putting himself forward for the job, despite all- tooembarrassing questions this raised about potential conflicts of interest.

After all, the main job of the chairman is to raise money for the galleries, whose debts are said to be terrifying, from the very same banks and businesses whose activities should be objectively scrutinised by his paper.

In a further ironic twist, it emerged that Barber was also chair of the Tate’s Ethics Committee — the very body that might be concerned about ‘conflicts of interest’.

And now I can reveal that Barber, 63, travelled this week to Tokyo, where he doubtless had the chance to explain to the anti-Brexit FT’s Japanese owners how he planned to juggle two such demanding and contradictory jobs.

Indeed, these issues are, I’m told, worrying both some members of the Tate board and journalists on the FT, a paper that somewhat self-consciously parades its integrity and journalistic superiority.

These same journalists were astonished when a hagiographic profile of up-andcoming Government minister Matt Hancock appeared on page three of the FT just days before Barber’s appointment was confirmed. ‘The oleaginous piece stood out like a sore thumb because we are usually known for our critical objectivity,’ an FT source tells me.

Could its publication be connected to the fact the chairman was chosen by the Tate’s board, whose members were appointed by No 10, which was doubtless influenced by the Culture Secretary — the aforementioned Matt Hancock?

Barber has declared he wants to remain as editor until 2020 but, I hear, in the wake of this controversy, three senior colleagues are already polishing their CVs.

Barber declines to comment, but a friend insists his Tokyo trip was for a ‘regular, quarterly meeting’ and that he had ‘nothing to do’ with the Hancock piece.

Funny, I thought he edited the paper. But then, he must be so busy doing two jobs these days.