Peter Mandelson famously proclaimed in 1998 that New Labour was ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’. One decade later, the government’s mood is not just chilled out but positively euphoric. That’s the clear message in a speech that business and enterprise secretary John Hutton – pictured – will deliver tomorrow, anyhow:
Rather than questioning whether huge salaries are morally justified, we should celebrate the fact that people can be enormously successful in this country
… he will tell a meeting of the pressure group Progress.
Rather than placing a cap on that success, we should be questioning why it is not available to more people. Our overarching goal that no one should get left behind must not become translated into a stultifying sense that no one should be allowed to get ahead.
I believe a key challenge for New Labour over the coming years is to recognise that, far from strengthening social justice, a version of equality that only gives you the opportunity to climb so far, actually subverts the values we should be representing. Instead, any progressive party worth its name must enthusiastically advocate empowering people to climb without limits, free from any barrier holding them back.
OK John, I’m convinced. I demand that the highest paid executive at HSBC – and the bank declines to reveal his name – should be paid even more than the £9.9m earned last year. The bloody Trotskyites are unfairly stopping him from getting ahead.
A scanty £14.4m in salary and bonus is simply not enough for a man of the calibre of RAB Capital’s Philip Richards. To hold back the man trying to blackmail the government over Northern Rock would indeed represent clear subversion of everything for which progressives ought to stand.
I insist – nay, demand! – that Reckitt Benckiser immediately grant chief executive Bart Becht a generous increase on his stultifying £22m wedge. This is obviously the politics of class envy, Old Labourism of the most toxic kind. Thank goodness we have Hutton to reinterpret basic democratic socialism in the language of today.
Then again, just before the Labour Party members among us joyously raise our glasses to toast the men – and perhaps the handful of women – who selflessly do so much to enhance social cohesion by pulling down eight-figure salaries, perhaps we ought to think through the logical consistency of what Hutton is saying.
Nobody – certainly not any government of the last three decades – has done anything whatsoever to restrict these people. To get rich has been glorious; Deng Xiaoping would certainly have approved.
There are no legal limits whatsoever on executive pay; some bosses earn more than their companies are worth. That leaves moral opprobrium as the last remaining sanction; it is one that is widely ignored.
Top executives earn more not just than the prime minister, but than the entire cabinet put together. Yet there is no objective evidence that corporate performance is enhanced as a result. This is wholesale looting, without any commercial, let alone moral, justification.
In a Britain where people are empowered to climb without limits, some 13m people – representing 22% of the population – were living in poverty as of 2007. Some of us would prefer to see a Labour government that regarded that as a key challenge, and stopped acting like fawning High School cheerleaders with an embarrassing crush on the super-rich.
post to del.icio.us |
For me, the question is not how rich people but how they got there. If someone becomes filthy rich by delivering cheaper food to the less advantaged, making cars affordable to more people or delivers some other good or service that people want in a competitive way, then I would say congratulations. Oddly, though, when it comes to sectors that are too close to politics and government, like banking, I am in agreement that it is disgusting (though not for exactly the same reasons that you suggest). Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance made a rather good argument on this: http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/is-the-city-of-london-good-for-england/
Ossler
What exactly are you complaining about?
Hutton doesn’t demand that top execs be paid more. And if HSBC decides an exec is worth £10mil a year then, like ManU deciding Ronaldo is worth £100k a week, that’s up to them.
Hutton just says that in a world where some people earn millions – the aim should be to empower people of all brackgrounds to rise so high – rather than leave such wealth to people born into it.
So whats the problem?
There’s also a difference between someone like Brecht, who earns his money paid as cash paid in the UK and therefore contributes £10m for the Treasury to spend on good stuff and improving other people’s life chances just out of his income (even assuming no knock-on or trickle-down), and someone who earns the same amount of money but avoids tax on it.
Bit confused by the Griffin chap in the linked article (who earns £3m despite running a plc worth £2m) though – if I were a shareholder in his company, I’d be seriously grumpy about that one…
“some bosses earn more than their companies are worth”
Get =/= earn
The issue isn’t if people should be allowed to become super-rich. This issue is if it is something we should celebrate. Essentially, do we accept that becoming incredibly rich is a moral goal or virtue? That government should specifically demand that people are enabled to become so?
I don’t see an individuals wealth as a measure of their value, so I don’t think there is any reason to hail the super-rich. People become super-rich, not a problem for me (ignoring issues of corporate accountability ect), but its not some wonderous and virtuous state of itself worthy of a speech hailing it.
Wealth in excess is not excessively good, nothing in excess is so. Forgive my Greek upbringing in virtue-ethics, but someone becomes ‘x’ in excess is ‘x’ is his overbearing goal in life, trampling all other values, and a government celebrating these overly private good values cannot be a government, or an ideology for that matter that is in honest pursuance of the common good. We are today witnessing the grotesque side-effects of the ‘richness in excess’ social predilection. But then, these are ancient ideas, long put out of place.
I wish they’d celebrate wealth by giving me some…now that would be a vote winner.
“Hutton just says that in a world where some people earn millions – the aim should be to empower people of all brackgrounds to rise so high – rather than leave such wealth to people born into it.”
Then he is talking out of his arse because a) it is not lack of aspiration for wealth that is keeping people poor and b) because it would be the suicide of the nation if many more people were able to become “rich” than currently are. Funnily enough the aspiration to be rich (and in doing so work very little but with high responsibility) is exactly what is bringing about the issues those same people wanting to be wealthy have about immigrants.
This nation’s politics is a jumble of contradictory sound bites wheeled out repetitively until the end of time.
Well the Trotskyte school system that makes citizens economical ignorant and that make David Osler do not grasp that shareholders dont want to pay billions to CEOs. But they have to! because the school system dont put enough good CEO’s in the Market , That simple word Market. Maybe he should ask why Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham, Hamilton get Millions too.
LL – well Hamilton is *objectively* the best driver.
CEO’s are chosen from a number of equally capable candidates – there is no shortage of clever ambitious people at that level.
And large complex comapnies – especially service companies – are not “driven” by the CEO in the way that Hamilton drives his car.
CEO pay is driven by compensation committees made up of, erm, other CEO’s.
And if no company wishes to pay “below average” then you can see how pay leapfrogging occurs and we have reached the stage we have.
I resist government intervention, but we do have a problem here.
Trying to calm this debate down a bit. Shouldn’t there be a higher rate of taxation on the very rich?
I certainly don’t mind the idea of higher taxation rates on the rich, however effective use of such taxation relies on an independently gather figure of how much money is “more than enough” to live with, which is probably too hard to actually define. Saying that I’d arbitrarily say those that “earn” over £1million getting taxed at a higher rate above that amount, along side a shift to land taxation makes sense, but again falls down in the sense that the rich are those that find it easiest to take their money out of the system in terms of counting towards taxation.
It’d be much more effective and simple in the short term to raise the threshold at which you start to pay tax, and increase the higher band of taxation while redressing the levels at which benefits are given to people.
So, Lee, I think we agree?
Good Post, have you ever thought about making money for your time and effort spent on writing good articles? At SayItAloud You can write, get exposure, and possibly earn some good money doing so. Either way, I’m bookmarking you. You can click on my name to go directly to our site.%d%a%d%aI look forward to your future postings.
Good article, I found yours on accident. I just thought I would let you know that you can make money now for your articles. At SayItAloud you can post your articles like you already do, but you can get better exposure and make some decent money in the process when companies sponsor your article. I bookmarked your page and I look forward to your future articles.%d%a%d%aYou can check out our site by clicking on my name.%d%a
[...] bad puppies to crap on the rug these long years. Now he’s going to rub their noses in it? We had Peter Mandelson fondling the rich at the birth of the New Labour government and John Hutton s…. Brown’s got a brass neck, frankly, the horrible old hypocrite. Posted on October 7th, 2008 [...]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
10 Comments 21 Comments 7 Comments 14 Comments 5 Comments 24 Comments 36 Comments 29 Comments 33 Comments 9 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Sunny Hundal posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » Robert posted on Here comes that Digital Election we have been waiting for » John posted on These union elections are just as important for Labour » Charlie 2 posted on Bloody Sunday: when it's right to reopen history » Matthew Stiles posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » jim posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » Sean posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » matgb posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » Matthew Stiles posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » eastender posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » Rich G posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » Bob B posted on Survey: Tory cuts are 'depressing confidence' » PDF posted on Labour leaders debate on Newsnight: quick thoughts » VS posted on Labour has no choice but to embrace political pluralism » Richard W posted on Yes, BP does need its ass kicked |