We have gone too far in our uncritical praise of the super-rich
Anne McElvoy
PHILIP Green — I think we can drop the “Sir” — is carrying off the objectionable churl of the year awards with aplomb. How will other disgraced financial high fliers match him?
The reported possessor of a gold Monopoly set has been brought crashing to earth by a failed business (but let’s not forge the success of Topshop), leaving jobless BHS staff to count the hole in their incomes and meagre pensions. Add on an ostentatious summer holiday on the yacht — and a “how very dare you” outburst at a photographer for revealing the jaunt — and Green’s PR advisers truly have the toughest gig in town.
There have always been high-rolling rotters. In Gatsby fashion, Green hid his flaws in plain sight, behind the veil of l o u d p a r t i e s , p i c t u re s s nu g g l i n g supermodels and borrowed glamour of hiring Beyoncé and Destiny’s Child to serenade his guests. Many retailers have failing businesses and, in fairness, Green also has sound ones too. Dynamic capitalism demands that the have-yachts take a tumble at times, so we need to keep a perspective on the inevitability of failures. But manners matter, as much if not more so in the very rich as the rest of us. This tycoon has failed that test with his grudging offer of a “voluntary” contribution to the pension chasm and bartering over the terms.
We have come to celebrate the very wealthy as the epitome of modern success: the entrepreneur with the selfmade country house is as popular a weekend host as the aristocratic next door, and that is the sign of a more s o c i a l l y mo b i l e B r i t a i n . L o n d o n especially has been the beneficiary of a less hidebound philosophy.
But deference has tilted too sharply in the other direction. I first had an inkling of discomfort about Green a few years ago when a glitzy event he spoke at, demanding that we celebrate wealthcreation more energetically, ended up as a parody of self-promotion. Recognising entrepreneurship for the motor of progress and growth that it is is laudable. Over-lauding the super-rich is not, because it leads to blind spots about unjust rewards.
This recognition now crosses the political spectrum — and we can expect to see it at the hear t of May-i sm. Tomorrow, Chris Philp, a Conservative on the Treasury select committee, publishes a critical report on executive rewards and their questionable oversight by the High Pay Centre. Crucially, respected City types, including the savvy former Labour City minister and hedgef u n d e r L o rd Myner s a n d leading financial services figures are taking an active interest in how to make top-end executive pay more congruent with overall performance. Credit where it is due — a topic that was the preserve of grungey protesters and the politics of envy now has traction that should make other high-rollers think more carefully about their reputations.
It would not harm for those public figures who aligned themselves so enthusiastically with Green to encourage him equally emphatically to do the right thing by his workers and face the consequences of BHS’s demise with greater humility and grasp of the damage to others. The very wealthy become immune to criticism when they succumb to the flattery of uncritical admiration. Gatsby’s party ended in a moral mess. So has Green’s. Destiny had the last word after all.