Morality and capitalism
When the expenses scandal created an explosion in Parliament Guy Fawkes would have been proud of, there was scramble to offer mea maxima culpa, and yet few had raised the issue prior to it hitting the news stands.
Similarly, the phone hacking revelations made any association with the Murdoch business empire toxic, and started another race for MPs to put the most distance between them and the media mogul they were previously fawning over.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdNow the hard economic times have turned the spotlight on big business and Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are all fighting to claim the moral high ground. But unlike other occasions, there is no easily defined “good and bad” in this row. It is all well and good for Mr Cameron to talk of moral capitalism, but what does this mean in the real world? By definition, therefore, there must be immoral capitalism, so could the Prime Minister name the immoral companies he is against?
Of course he would not – but he did choose his words more carefully than Ed Miliband’s reckless “predators and producers” speech at the Labour Party conference last year, while Nick Clegg’s plans to create a “John Lewis economy” also smacked of bandwagon jumping, using a respected British brand to try and add credibility to the policy.
All three risk accusations of hypocrisy, with city financiers among the biggest donors to political parties. Furthermore, the world of big business simply cannot be broken down as right or wrong, predator or producer, moral or immoral.
Clearly the grotesque scale of some boardroom bonuses is offensive to the vast majority of working families, but it is patronising of the political elite to believe they can somehow rise serenely above the storm brewing around the City and claim moral indignation..
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThat is not to say the Government should not be taking action and decisive measures to shackle boardroom excess are welcome, but such efforts should be undertaken with the humility of those who said little about such behaviour before it became a public outrage.