Why am I so troubled by this report about how much the directors of the biggest companies in the UK are being paid?

Two disturbing figures:

1. Directors pay in the biggest firms has gone up by 102.2% since 2000 while the average pay of their employees has risen 28.6%.

2. Half of FTSE350 directors earn more than £1million.

Do I have any liberal reason to be upset by this? Or should I just accept that my objection to greed on this scale is simply aesthetic, on a par with my dislike of, say, polystyrene, or certain shades of purple, so I’ve got no reason to advocate political action against it?

Two fairly sound liberal principles are that power should be dispersed, and it should be accountable.

There isn’t a simple equation of money = power, but wealth is certainly one of the forms that power can take. The financial power of individuals is always fairly unaccountable, for good reasons. But individuals or families with millions of pounds to invest inevitably wield considerable power over others, whatever they choose to do with their money. This is the case whether they exercise it directly (eg by owning a single firm), or indirectly (by spreading investments across the world).

I’ve not suddenly decided that we need a command economy, simply transferring power from businessmen to bureaucrats.

But my point here is that this concern about the rich getting richer shouldn’t be mistaken for a dowdy form of socialism. It’s not about class or envy or standardization for its own sake. (And its not just about poverty, either. In global terms most of the people employed by one of these companies continuously since 2000 are probably not destitute, even if their employment is not very life-affirming).

This is about power. That’s what makes it a liberal issue. I might almost say something to shout about.

Share This

According to the Guardian, the BAA have been denouncing aviation taxes at Tory Party conference in favour of emissions trading.

Sounds fair enough - I think emissions trading is a good idea as well (indeed, the Lib Dems have been flying that particular flag long before it was fashionable). But I can’t help but get the feeling they are actually trying to confuse the debate rather than play a constructive part in it.

Firstly, bringing aviation into emissions trading will take years. Aviation is specifically excluded under the Kyoto protocol and numerous treaties over the years have made taxing aviation fuel illegal since the twenties(?). So, what BAA are actually saying is that we shouldn’t do anything for a decade (and that’s assuming an international agreement can be made).

Secondly, Lib Dem policy is for an Aircraft Tax to replace Air Passenger Duty. Instead of charging each passenger £X (which budget airlines always conveniently remove when mentioning their cheap fares), the whole aircraft is levied a charge which then will be distributed for each passenger. This gives the airline an incentive to fill the plane as much as possible and, subsequently, pass the cost onto the passenger as little as possible. It is the current system that penalises passengers.

Thirdly, under the current system, big business has been able to force the government to set as high a carbon emissions target as they can possibly get away with. I can’t help but feel that was at the back of Roger Wiltshire’s mind when he made these proposals.

What this all adds up to me is a smokescreen, an opportunity for BAA to sound green while being anything but. We could introduce an aircraft tax tomorrow; it will be many years before aviation can be brought into emissions trading and that scheme is in need of being toughened up. Aircraft taxes don’t price passengers out; the status quo passenger levy does. BAA must know all this, so the question is, why do they turn up to Tory Conferences and say the opposite?

Share This

In this post-Gitmo world where all deaths are to be presumed PR moves, what is one to make of this?

Share This