.gif)
An appointment of Tsar quality
You could count on the fingers of one finger the number of initiatives introduced by D-Cam and his teaboy Cleggers that have received a warm welcome in the Jack household. It is an unashamedly left of centre establishment. But the announcement by the governing coalition that they had recruited Arcadia boss Sir Philip Green to head up an efficiency review of Government spending was greeted equal amounts of surprise and approval. He is definitely among the few who might actually be able to cut through the process-choked bureaucracies and bullsh*t of Whitehall. If he is then able to make any kind of best practice recommendations that would bear up under the scrutiny and commercial rigours of the private sector then halle-*$&÷ing-lujah.
Surprise at Sir Philip's appointment stemmed not from any lack of confidence in the man's suitability to do the job but because he was an innovative and politically very brave choice. His wealth, notoriously plain speaking manner and high profile make Sir Philip a very easy target for political point-scorers of every variety. And so it has proved.
Having a billionaire heading up a review that could lead to further cuts in government spending and the need for widespread belt tightening was never likely to sit well with everyone. But Green's own personal wealth is not the issue at hand; this country needs to sort out its debts, identifying inefficiencies in the public sector is one way to do this and he is someone with the commercial pedigree to get this mammoth job done.
It was, then, with genuine disbelief that I read a borderline ridiculous article in the UK's last remaining left-leaning broadsheet newspaper about Green's appointment. That the tone of the piece was not exactly friendly towards the Bhs boss was of little surprise - a history of clashes both real and ideological guaranteed that - but a couple of the quotes it contained were simply jaw-droppingly infantile. For example, you have this little gem from Richard Murphy, director of Tax Research UK, who was apparently 'astonished' at the appointment, saying: "What has running government got to do with buying pretty frocks and underwear, which is the basis of a high street emporium?" So breathtakingly fatuous was this comment that I was forced to re-read it over and over, just to make sure I hadn't misunderstood. Leaving aside that no part of Sir Philip's role will involve "running government" in any way, shape or form, reducing the establishment of a massively successful multi-brand retail business to "buying pretty frocks and underwear" is just imbecilic. You know what Mr Murphy, if that's all there is to it, it's a wonder there aren't a few thousand more billionaire retail entrepreneurs, eh? It is an opinion so asinine that it smacks of personal dislike rather than reasoned argument.
Similar in its apparent blinkered stupidity came the comments of Paul Kenny, secretary general of the GMB union, who asserted: "If we were seeking advice about marketing or selling clothes he is someone you might ask. This is about the health, education and care of millions of our fellow citizens, not about importing cheap clothing." I mean really, come on it's just embarrassing. This is indeed about the health, education and care of millions, it is an endeavour to ensure we are getting the best we possibly can with the resources that we have. And as for "marketing or selling clothes", is that really what he believes is the extent of Green's skillset after a lifetime of building retail businesses? One of the first tasks the spending review will involve is to study whether Government leases and contracts entered into since 2007 represent value for money. Attaining and offering value for money are among the fundamental principles of successful retailing. It is a low-margin commercial arena in which the expenditure of every single penny is scrutinised. Exposure to such disciplines can only benefit the public sector. The Arcadia boss also pointed to the disciplines of procurement, IT and real estate with which he has to deal every day - areas that might, just might, also have relevance in the review of Government spending.
While entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand - Sir Philip's suitability to conduct the Government review - a lot of column inches regarding the 'Green-gate' debate have been filled with his tax status. A great deal of media hay has been made about the £1.2 billion dividend payment made by his Arcadia business in 2005. The payment was made to Green's wife Tina, the direct owner of Arcadia, who as a resident of Monaco did not have to pay UK income tax on it. This has precisely bugger all to do with his ability to conduct the efficiency review, it is no more relevant than his favourite colour or preferred breakfast cereal. Actually, no that's not quite right, there is one strand of relevance as far as I can see and it is this: the man knows how the systems works and how to work the system. But that's not something to bemoan, it should be celebrated - it is this level of expertise amid the harsh realities of the commercial world that makes him perfect for the job.
All the same it was pretty galling to see so much mud-slinging in ostensibly credible media titles. Another Guardian editorial described Green as both a "foul-mouthed tycoon" and an "unelected tax avoider" - again it just seemed rather personal and emotive rather than an analysis of his viability as a Government adviser. In the interests of fairness the Bhs boss did (allegedly) describe City AM's political editor as a "f*cking t*sser" - on closer inspection this came in response to the journalist in question banging on about on about the tax issue rather Sir Philip's remit as the Government's 'efficiency Tsar'. But similarly in the interests of fairness it seems a little skewed to describe someone who employs 45,000 UK residents and has personally paid hundreds of millions to HMRC (the taxman) over the last few years as a 'tax avoider'.
There's nothing wrong for people to object to any governmental appointment, in fact where the media is concerned it is their duty to highlight and apply scrutiny to such matters. Nor does Sir Philip Green need defending; he's more than capable of sticking up for himself. I really object, however, to a project this potentially important becoming coloured by what seems like a catalogue of personal animosities. Okay, some might argue that this is the inevitable outcome for someone who picks fights with people who buy ink by the barrel. But nevertheless why was it necessary for so many articles to allude to who how much Green spent on celebrity entertainers at his son's Bar Mitzvah or which of his famous friends he'd been seen out with or invited to his yacht? What could these pointless little factoids possibly add to the debate, other than emphasise that the man has a sizeable wedge of cash? Or was this to paint a picture of glamour, riches and excess (with a the point - frisson of implied sharp commercial practice)? Perhaps this is the reason far more columnists referred to his taste for "partying with model Kate Moss and pop svengali Simon Cowell" than noted that he is also in business with both of them. If so a lot of folk just need to grow up.
As someone entirely comfortable being described as a lefty, I have been pretty embarrassed by the journalistic tack taken by a number of people who should really know better. Getting someone in who might be able to help our public finances is a good idea, even if it doesn't work it was certainly worth trying. Though it pains me to say so, D-Cam and Cleggers might have got this one right.
If you'd like to comment on any of Jack's article or share rant about something that irritates you, email editorial@theappointment.co.uk. It might tempt him out of the cupboard, and maybe he'll write about what annoys you!
.gif)