(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Does the coalition really need this foul-mouthed tycoon?

Sir Philip Green is just the latest magnate to advise government. Their record has been a sorry one

Most public servants stay away from retail. The Philip Green approach, "done and dusted, back to the beach", is not their style, any more than his apothegm: "I want to make a profit, not be a prophet."

And yet, if Sir Philip were to appeal to these amateurs for help with his fashion business, I don't doubt that, like him, they would patriotically abandon their dearest principles and, "chin up, chest out" as he put it last weekend, focus on increasing the personal gain of the retail giant and his intriguing, billionaire wife, Monaco-based Cristina Green. Surely more could be done, in these difficult times, to increase turnover in his Topshop stores? Some civil servants might advise, for instance, that the "hairy pea coat" Topshop is doing this season, fine though it looks at 200 paces, has all the immediate appeal of old carpet underlay, and they want 128 quid for it. Boden does a better one for less, in velvet. Sir Philip must be, to use the language of fashion, taking the piss. Is there really no sweatshop in the Far East where the thing could be made more cheaply?

On the other hand, the state of the sale rails and perpetual shortage of changing rooms in his Oxford Street store, where queues of drooping teens snake across the shop floor, might look like a more pressing challenge to advisers who are eager, like Sir Philip, to make a difference right away.

Unless, that is, the changing room queues are deliberate, stimulating in his customers an ever more uncontrollable desire to buy six items or fewer of disposable tat. As Sir Philip says of Whitehall: "We need to understand the process." What can outsiders say about a world which, being unprincipled and unaccountable, organised for the short term and driven by the ambitious greed of one individual has so much to teach public service? Although Sir Philip is not, perhaps thankfully, one of those businessmen-thinkers who pretends to have a philosophy to share with his disciples, he has informed business interviewers that his strategy is as follows: "It's always borrow, repay quickly and build the business." His particular talent is also easy to summarise: "I've always understood how to buy merchandise and run my businesses efficiently," he told one admirer.

However, running businesses is evidently more complex than that or Mr Green would not have failed to take over Marks & Spencer in 2004 or Safeway in 2003. Civil servants should bear in mind that their mentor might be sensitive about his backstory. When colleagues on the Guardian looked at BhS, around the time of the Safeway bid, Mr Green objected that its then financial editor, Paul Murphy, "can't read English. Mind you, he is a fucking Irishman". When that approach failed, Sir Philip (with a taste of the charm that captivates Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Moss) regretted the state of British libel laws. "You know what the shame is? If the laws of this country were like America, right? I'd love you to print that because I'd be able to close you down, put you out of your misery."

A question on the Today programme recently, about his unusual tax arrangements, appears to have prompted not dissimilar feelings about the BBC. Although he managed not to call the interviewer a "fucking tosser", perhaps because he'd already used that up on the man from CityAM, Sir Philip responded later, with what read very like a threat: "Perhaps when I finish this job, my next could be to review the strategy and costs of the BBC?"

If they ever had any doubts about choosing Sir Philip, this episode can only have confirmed to his coalition colleagues the value of their new asset, whose rhetoric makes Baron Sugar of Clapton sound like a Fimble. If Green keeps this up his entrepreneurial dazzle could outlast even David Rowland, whose flirtation with the Conservatives has just ended in disappointment.

There is not much point, after all, in begging an unelected tax avoider to lecture the country on virile, can-do efficiency if he can't swat away smug, licence fee-funded losers who will never be able to afford a pair of yachts called Lionheart and Lionchase and moor them in the harbour at Monaco. Sir Philip's shameless aggression promises far greater value, if only in terms of PR, than any previous politicians have got out of their pet magnates, from Thatcher's Lord Young to Sir Richard Branson, Sir James Dyson, Lord Sugar and, until recently, Digby Jones, who has just urged Green: "Go make a difference."

If the nature of Lord Jones's own contribution, in this respect, remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma, he attributes this fact to a combination of feeble ministers and recalcitrant civil servants: "You will be working with some of the most risk-averse people in the country."

But here comes Sir Philip, regardless, determined to show that ruthless individualism and social responsibility are, contrary to appearances, a perfect fit. Even if they can't be run like airlines, supermarkets, computer companies, vacuum cleaner factories (in Malaysia) or the global energy industry (although Lord Browne is on the case), government departments can be more like Topshop. It might or might not help him that, unlike most of his predecessors, Green's name is a red-top fixture, synonymous with extravagance, £5m birthday parties (with Green got up as Nero) and £4m bar mitzvahs, featuring Beyoncé.

His naked belly is, on its own, so famous that, pictured atop a vast pair of bathers, it would be recognised the world over in any game of match-the-face-to-the-abdomen. To his wife, though she is much less well known, goes the credit for organising Simon Cowell's 50th birthday where, an awestruck press reported, the invitations came on mirrors, the menus were black suede and visiting billionaires, having feasted on fish fingers, were entertained with giant dancing vibrators.

Even if his first big efficiency proposal, that of centralised procurement, makes Green unpopular with the myriad suppliers who would thereby be efficiently put out of business, it might be years before this dented the public image of a man whose partying puts the coalition on useful, first-name terms with an international league of yacht-lovers, from Jennifer Lopez and the more obscure Russians who supply much of this nautical hospitality, to Naomi Campbell, whose political connections extend from Charles Taylor to Sarah Brown. From Green's perspective, this can't hurt. But what about the coalition?

What was the plan? A standard, pro-business grovel? General moral affront? Or, merely, to deliver an insult the civil service would never forget: King Midas in charge of efficiency savings? Of all our business legends, Green must be the first to own a solid gold Monopoly set, a gift from his wife that features only their own acquisitions, now including a lease on Whitehall and, if he gets his way, the BBC.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • physiocrat physiocrat

    22 Aug 2010, 12:42AM

    Behind the fine talk, that's the reality of Anarcho-Capitalism.

    The left should have thrown away its textbooks in 1989 and developed a serious intellectual challenge to this dangerous nonsense, which where the "tory trolls" who infest CiF are getting their ideas from.

    As things are, the left can still do no better than regurgitate its own failed ideas, which are ineffective against this new virulent ideology.

  • lightacandle lightacandle

    22 Aug 2010, 1:03AM

    The big sell off is about to start and all those who have been waiting in line behind their political stooges are coming to claim their rewards taking apart government as we know it and all its assets strip by strip. But has anyone told Cameron yet that they're not his to sell off - they're ours - whether it be the state infrastructure, the public sector, the National Health Service, the State Education system, local authorities, the BBC and the rest....they belong to the people of this country who's work, support and taxes have built them up over the decades not to be sold off in one foul swoop to the Tory party cronies waiting in the wings to get their piece of the pie.

    Businesses may own the tory party but we're not for sale and if they're not stopped you can say goodbye to a civilized society and hello to the world of Mr Green, Mr Ashcroft and the rest and all that that entails - let's just hope they don't sell us off or succumb to a take over bid from the far east too soon but you know business....profit comes first and stuff the rest.

  • federalexpress federalexpress

    22 Aug 2010, 2:00AM

    What a nasty vitriolic piece about someone has more drive in his little finger than the author has in their entire body and whose success from a fairly modest background puts in stark contrast the same authors own position in life.

    Note to editor; any chance of some proper journalism round here rather than chip on the shoulder character assassinations?

  • NomadicView NomadicView

    22 Aug 2010, 4:47AM

    I doubt there will be much advising done by Philip Green. It's just a guise to get his foot in the door of the latest Government car-boot sale. Just one more in a long line of sociopathic tossers come to buy off the countries assets and ship them to his off shore bank account, we will lose the nhs, but who cares? Money saved equals just one more ivory back scratcher for him and his ilk.

  • OurPlanet OurPlanet

    22 Aug 2010, 5:50AM

    @federalexpress: Philip Green certainly has probably more drive in his little finger but so does a sociopath hellbent on making a profit no matter what the cost to others. I bet you can be nasty and vitriolic as well as your adopted friend. By the way are you a neo con trolling from across the pond?

  • Snapshackle Snapshackle

    22 Aug 2010, 8:08AM

    Philip Green is the logical conclusion of lauding of the morals and ethics of the east end barrow boy.

    That a party of Government should be impressed by the likes of Philip Green I find profoundly depressing.

    The only thing is does do is graphically show that the present Tory administration does not have the depth or breath of intellect or moral rigor that we have every right to expect from the Government of a major nation.

    That is (frankly) three shit administrations is a row spanning the last thirty years. This county becomes more ‘third world’ at every election.

    We are long overdue a revolution.

  • physiocrat physiocrat

    22 Aug 2010, 9:05AM

    @ Snapshackle

    That is (frankly) three shit administrations is a row spanning the last thirty years. This county becomes more ‘third world’ at every election

    Now why do you think that is? Does a democratic country get three bad administrations in a row just by chance? Come to think of it, I can't think of a good one after 1951. The only two half-way-reasonable ones were 1906 and 1945.

  • Mark42 Mark42

    22 Aug 2010, 9:09AM

    A man who seems to be quite adept at tax avoidence and paying his lower staff as little as possible seems to fit in well with the con-dems. Maybe he would like some of these big society types to work in his shops for free.

  • raymonddelauney raymonddelauney

    22 Aug 2010, 9:51AM

    Like Mainwaring's unseen Elizabeth, or Arthur Daley's 'Er Indoors; Phillip Green has the wife out of sight and in the good Lady's case, offshore.

    I've begun to think of her as the nation's sweetheart, well at least under this Tory coalition. Especially as the poor soul will suffer the privation of losing her oaf of a husband for literally weeks on end in his new 'government' duties. Which means she's going to have to endure more time sadly back in olde London.

    High-living proof were it needed, that behind every successful knight, there's a dutiful beautiful duty-free wife.

  • jonniestewpot jonniestewpot

    22 Aug 2010, 10:04AM

    I ask you to compare and so accept the veracity of Catharine’s argument.

    Top Shop.

    Boden.

    You decide.

    Without appearing to be favouring Catharine and so currying an undue influence. The Boden velvet coat can be had in charcoal, green, mouse and shocking pink.

  • rusticred rusticred

    22 Aug 2010, 10:10AM

    What a nasty vitriolic piece about someone has more drive in his little finger than the author has in their entire body and whose success from a fairly modest background puts in stark contrast the same authors own position in life

    .

    So have a lot of people its not the drive its the ethics.

    Being an entrepreneur IS about taking risks others fear to tread.

    Therefore by definition he is the wrong person for the role he ha been asked to do. This is window dressing at its best. If we are not careful we will get what we deserve. A corporate led civil service who will serve their masters expect a return to work houses.

  • Lampedusa Lampedusa

    22 Aug 2010, 10:11AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • JoeDM JoeDM

    22 Aug 2010, 10:19AM

    We need successful people to take part in public service and politics otherwise we are left with the career politician numpties on the make that dominate out political parites today and have caused so much damage to our nation.

  • MELANIEBELLAMY MELANIEBELLAMY

    22 Aug 2010, 10:21AM

    I think the whole thing is getting out of hand Cameron with these Tory donors first get Stuart Rose to run up a frock for Sam then wee philip strolls in with his Top Shop gear
    It is ironic that the business man Philip Green has a brother in law named Stirling Moss who I understand tries to close night clubs/restaurants down if they appear in his back yard in Mayfair SO will call me Dave be getting him on board too since the Green Family are the future of our business module

    Mel Bel x

  • peterfieldman peterfieldman

    22 Aug 2010, 10:28AM

    Philip Green represents a dying breed that is facing extinction. The financial crisis like the Gulf oil spill, has brought to the surface the unacceptable face of capitalism that has been polluting our planet. The mega rich are running scared as they can see the writing on the wall so far as their tax avoiding lives are concerned that threatens their life style.
    During the past two decades the privileged elite and their families have been able to earn and retain untold wealth. The incestuous club of remuneration committees have granted fellow boardroom directors massive earnings, bonuses, pensions and severance payouts that are both immoral and unmerited. Through the use of avoidance schemes and tax havens that Western Governments have allowed to proliferate, individuals and corporations have avoided paying their fair share of tax. While the majority of the population have faced increases on taxes on income and death and lose jobs and homes, the wealthy have grown richer at every generation, just see the Rich List. It is clear that Governments have to reduce debt and the cost of social benefits to cope with the unemployed and impoverished. This naturally requires raising tax revenues and the G20 nations have made promises to crack down on ways that lead to tax avoidance and evasion. Promises to crack down on the tax havens, and introduce a Tobin tax on financial transactions are being resisted by the financial lobbies. But no democratic society can allow such a massive wealth gap. It can only lead to civil unrest or worse as happened in France in 1789. This should be a lesson but we tend never to learn from history despite the warning signs today. My report "A Moral Path to Recovery" was sent to Governments outlining how to create a fairer society. It can also be found on my blog: www.pfieldman.blogspot.com.

  • frog2 frog2

    22 Aug 2010, 10:32AM

    Snapshackle 8.08AM
    That a party of Government should be impressed by the likes of Philip Green I find profoundly depressing.
    The only thing is does do is graphically show that the present Tory administration does not have the depth or breath of intellect or moral rigor that we have every right to expect from the Government of a major nation.

    Excellently put ! The Indie headlines this morning on Whitehall's 30,000 whistleblowers on this government"s consultation on cost-cutting. Their journalists selected 80 suggestions from the zany ,such as "selling Cornwall" to buying a spare part on google at 20% of the price of the "appproved supplier " here. Well worth a look.
    They also have an editorial cautiously approving the initiative and telling us what we already knew , that " In any organisation, some of the people best able to identify waste and to devise more efficient ways of achieving better results are the staff who actually do the work."

    New Labour with their vast extension of managerialism and the associated over-use of consultants proved that they just did not know this simple fact. Respect for people lower down the hierarchies was completely absent, and their pay stagnated while those above grew in numbers and received more and more.

    So the ideas and intelligence are already there from within, and just perhaps, some Coalition ministers will make use of them, but I'm not holding my breath. The continuation of the disgraceful treatment of the genuinely disabled by New Labour continues apace, and it appears that many in the Coalition have the same contempt for working people too.

    I do think that the Guardian could have put more effort into this cost-cutting than a lightweight attack on the unpleasant Mr Green, because there is the serious probability that we are in for years of low growth.

  • federalexpress federalexpress

    22 Aug 2010, 10:38AM

    ourplanet

    "@federalexpress: Philip Green certainly has probably more drive in his little finger but so does a sociopath hellbent on making a profit no matter what the cost to others. I bet you can be nasty and vitriolic as well as your adopted friend. By the way are you a neo con trolling from across the pond?"

    As silly a post as the OP's. There's a place for whinging about people more successful than yourself, but it isn't in a supposed quality newspaper.

    rusticred

    "So have a lot of people its not the drive its the ethics.

    Being an entrepreneur IS about taking risks others fear to tread."

    Taking risks is unethical?

    "Therefore by definition he is the wrong person for the role he ha been asked to do."

    To pick out one attribute and claims it is sufficient to render him unsuitable for the role is illogical. On the other hand, the question posed is a valid one and might have made the subject of a serious journalistic piece.

    To be blunt, even if the bloke is a complete bastard- and I don't know because I've never met him and nor has anyone else on here- we need more not fewer risk takers, more people willing to create wealth and employment through their talent, drive and determination. If there are people who think they could do a better job, then do it, the more the merrier given most businesses fail in the first few years.

    Do I think that's likely? No, most if not all on here are much happier sniping from the sidelines a la Bennett because they have nothing like the bottle, required to be a success.

  • RioBill RioBill

    22 Aug 2010, 10:52AM

    This obnoxious man should fit well into a government composed of multi millionaires and other assorted over priveleged, ex public school boys.
    Not a laughing matter because who is going to suffer is us, the general population as anything that can be privatised, will be, and living standards are dumbed down to minimum salary level. The race to the bottom, started by the EU, sanctioned by Blair & Brown is now on with a vengence.
    Luckily my kids all have dual nationality, are multi-lingual and can emigrate to better places than the third rate banana republic that this country is rapidly becoming under this neo con outfit that want to run it purely for the advantage of their families, friends and supporters.

  • meravie meravie

    22 Aug 2010, 10:55AM

    He certainly knows his stuff, though his credentials regarding tax etc, as I'm sure he'll admit himself, could be viewed as rather hypocritical.
    I say give him a go - he's such a good manager he may be able to turn his shop empire building skills to advising on the running of the country.

  • chingwu chingwu

    22 Aug 2010, 12:16PM

    lightacandle

    22 Aug 2010, 1:03AM

    The big sell off is about to start and all those who have been waiting in line behind their political stooges are coming to claim their rewards taking apart government as we know it and all its assets strip by strip. But has anyone told Cameron yet that they're not his to sell off - they're ours - whether it be the state infrastructure, the public sector, the National Health Service, the State Education system, local authorities, the BBC and the rest....they belong to the people of this country who's work, support and taxes have built them up over the decades not to be sold off in one foul swoop to the Tory party cronies waiting in the wings to get their piece of the pie.
    .........................................................................................
    The electricity, water and gas weren't Thatchers to sell, but she sold 'em!

    I applaud what you say, and agree wholeheartedly, but it won't stop them selling them.

  • jfngw jfngw

    22 Aug 2010, 12:32PM

    He's the coalitions perfect partner. I've been into a BHS store, past it's best, no obvious investment, and stuck in the past. Most of the shoppers could probably be seen at a Tory party conference.

  • Maidmarion Maidmarion

    22 Aug 2010, 1:02PM

    "Catherine Bennett comes from that privileged background that seems to be so easily upset by wealthy, upstarts such as Phillip Green with questionable accents. She's Hertford College, ex Husband Robert Sackville-West of, you know THOSE Sackville-Wests, now partner of John Humphreys yes THAT John Humphreys. How dare Phillip Green be wealthier than her; how dare he speak to people that she speaks to? How dare he make his money now instead of the comfort of having made it 500 years ago by rigging the market for clothing in England as, I read, did the 1st Earl of Dorset later Sackville. "

    Thanks for that!

    I do get a tad fed up with the pontificating hypocrites who inhabit the hallowed halls of the fourth estate.

    Lets not have any entrepreneurs.
    Lets not have any huge tax payers ,like Philip Green 3 point how many million?

    Lets just have politicians who have never worked in the world outside politics , never had to balance books and always had a nice wee line in expenses for which the rest of us would be jailed.

    Lets just have loads of journalists/churnalists busying away trying to unearth the truth ( snort and snigger!)

    And loads of folk shuffling paper around being a something tsar of something ridiculous but on an extremely high salary.

    Add to that the BBBC and what more could we want eh?

  • Alarming Alarming

    22 Aug 2010, 1:14PM

    Presumably the people here who don't seem to care whether Green dodges tax via loopholes are first to comment about dole scroungers.

    Presumably too they haven't twigged that most entrepreneurs in the UK are also subsidised by the tax-paying population in the form of breaks and incentives to locate businesses in certain areas.

    Or do they seriously think it's all done through the goodness of their hearts? Do me a favour.

  • klang klang

    22 Aug 2010, 2:03PM

    I can't see that Sir Phil has enriched the UK in any way, shape, or form.

    If he didn't sell his tat, someone else would. (The tax take could even be higher in this case.)

    I can't imagine he's done anything for our balance of trade. In fact he's a clothing importer in a nation with an auspicious past in textiles.

    Somehow, and I really don't know how, I live in a society that's knighted him for his, erm, activities.

    Whatever his talents are, he should not be allowed anywhere near our public services.

  • klang klang

    22 Aug 2010, 2:04PM

    I can't see that Sir Phil has enriched the UK in any way, shape, or form.

    If he didn't sell his tat, someone else would. (The tax take could even be higher in this case.)

    I can't imagine he's done anything for our balance of trade. In fact he's a clothing importer in a nation with an auspicious past in textiles.

    Somehow, and I really don't know how, I live in a society that's knighted him for his, erm, activities.

    Whatever his talents are, he should not be allowed anywhere near our public services.

  • federalexpress federalexpress

    22 Aug 2010, 2:50PM

    alarmed

    "Presumably too they haven't twigged that most entrepreneurs in the UK are also subsidised by the tax-paying population in the form of breaks and incentives to locate businesses in certain areas."

    Really? Can you give me full details of these generous subsidies since I've not come across them.

    Then perhaps you could deal with the impossible logic of an entrepreneur being subsidised by the tax paying population given that the latter wouldn't exist without the former.

    You should obviously try this entrepreneur lark yourself, it's obviously so simple to succeed and showered with subsidies, even an imbecile couldn't fail.

  • alisdaircameron alisdaircameron

    22 Aug 2010, 3:03PM

    Green has no insight to the culture of public services,where despite the propaganda to the contrary, the majority retain the public sector ethos of working for the greater public good, enormously valuable goodwill something which is being squandered by shoddy treatment of the workforce.Nor has he any experience of a fundamental difference between the public and the private sector: that is the universal service and the obligations entailed by that. Lewis Hamilton is a great F1 driver. Put him in the Paris-Dakar rally, and his driving skills may well see him do well, but he'll still not be as good as a top driver with experience of the environment.
    It’s worth considering that there’s a big difference between running a retail company – where you do things people want, and profit from supplying – and a state – where you offer things people may not want (like tax collection...) but that the state needs. And you don’t profit from supplying.And in many areas you have to supply good to everyone,regardless. Cherry-picking isn't an option.
    Many public services – from night buses to the NHS, from business advice leaflets to the police – are never going to show any kind of profit. Would he therefore shut them down?
    I'd hope political imperatives (you don't know with this Govt), but more pointedly, societal practicalities mean that he couldn't. Thus he can't simply hive off 'unprofitable' services, nor can he outsource service delivery overseas. The guy is going to be way out of his comfort zone and stripped of the tactics that have brought him his fortune: he can hardly recommend the government move its financial interests offshore and transfer them into Mrs Government’s name
    Past experience tells us that people from the private sector, so convinced that they know so much better, have tended to come a little unstuck in the public sector. And I think – a bold proposition in itself – that it’s because of the nature of the public sector beast.It's services that have to be universal, along with infrastructure too, and preserving the systems by which society functions (eg legal system, regulation), that the private sector either never touches, or comes at from completely the opposite perspective to that required by the state, and the interplay between all of these. He doesn’t know, and couldn't, what the knock-on effects will be because that’s not his background. He’s demonstrably good at getting businesses to be much more profitable, but that’s not the same as being efficient although it’s easy to assume that it is.Desirable public service 'outputs' are way more complicated (from life expectancy, to educational standards to crime rates to defence to justice to quality of life etc etc) than the single metric of profit. I'm not saying one's easier than the other, but that they are very very different.

  • Rillo Rillo

    22 Aug 2010, 4:02PM

    "Philip Green certainly has probably more drive in his little finger but so does a sociopath hellbent on making a profit no matter what the cost to others"

    Amazing that nobody here has met the man, nor works for one of his very successful companies and yet he is the devil incarnate?!

    So here is a man who has built and run multiple successful companies that provide jobs for many thousands of people and yet you all seem to hate him.

    Have any of you spoken to his employees to see what they think of him?

    I would suggest a man with his background of success would be ideally placed to advise a government on investment.

    And if it annoys all you class warriors and guardianistas along the way then that's just icing on the cake.

  • federalexpress federalexpress

    22 Aug 2010, 4:07PM

    alasdaircameron

    "It’s worth considering that there’s a big difference between running a retail company – where you do things people want, and profit from supplying – and a state – where you offer things people may not want (like tax collection...) but that the state needs."

    I'm not sure that's the best way of expressing the difference, nor that we should accept that the state is not there to provide services that its customers want, in the way that it wants them. A constant experience I have with public sector services are that they are geared not around the needs of the customer but around the convenience of the provider.

    One obvious reason this is being tried is to try and correct the massive productivity gap measured between the state and private sector, most vividly quantified in the ONS study released last year.

    Whether Green is capable of solving this is, I agree, a very moot point, but he might be able to blow away the inward looking culture that I believe may well be the problem with the public services

  • yoric yoric

    22 Aug 2010, 4:36PM

    Who do you want running the Country? Politicians? generally no experience and producing bad results, look at Gordon Brown, or should we let the people who make millions on the high street in retail sales run the economy.

    What state would the Country be in if the people who run RyanAir, M&S, Tesco, BHS etc? were given control of the economy, i know who i would prefer in charge.

  • alisdaircameron alisdaircameron

    22 Aug 2010, 5:05PM

    @ fedexpress. There is something in what you say,in terms of changing the worst elements of some public sector workers' attitudes, but a transfusion in of private sector ethos is not, in my eyes, any kind of an answer, and will prove counterproductive: you'd see an immediate dissipation of the extant public sector ethos and the added value of the goodwill that holds so many services together, plus a growing reluctance and resentment towards 'unprofitable' public service users with complex or awkward needs, who can't be jettisoned . The state is there (in part, at least) to supply what people need, rather than simply what they want. In place of saying what the state needs, I should probably have said what society collectively needs, and for which the state is the platform to ensure universal access and provision.

  • Burgau205 Burgau205

    22 Aug 2010, 5:41PM

    alisdair cameron

    `Green has no insight to the culture of public services,where despite the propaganda to the contrary, the majority retain the public sector ethos of working for the greater public good, enormously valuable goodwill something which is being squandered by shoddy treatment of the workforce'

    On the contrary, we hear this week that a national piece of research indicates that public servants in the main work only one third of the day and there is little management control to monitor and prevent this abuse of tax payers' money..

    Surgery is needed in very short order and it is being applied I am happy to say..

  • Burgau205 Burgau205

    22 Aug 2010, 5:45PM

    klang

    `I can't see that Sir Phil has enriched the UK in any way, shape, or form.

    If he didn't sell his tat, someone else would. (The tax take could even be higher in this case.)'

    He employs thousands of British people, run his businesses very well indeed and since these businesses are very profitable in an extremely difficult market sector at an even more difficult time, they pay extremely large sums in tax to the treasury.

  • Lampedusa Lampedusa

    22 Aug 2010, 6:06PM

    That my previous comment has been deleted, I find a very revealing benchmark for what CIF regards as valid comment.

    It would appear that criticism of a journalist in the same terms she uses in her article is not on. This gives a whole new insight into the meaning or indeed the purpose of Comment is Free.

  • shlick shlick

    22 Aug 2010, 6:33PM

    federalexpress
    22 Aug 2010, 2:00AM

    "What a nasty vitriolic piece about someone has more drive in his little finger than the author has in their entire body"

    In the context in which you use it, I'd be dead interested to know what your definition of 'drive' is. Making obscene amounts of money? If that's the case more than 99% of us, including yourself, have no 'drive' at all.

  • Saoir Saoir

    22 Aug 2010, 6:34PM

    Whenever I read some hi minded journalist refer to someone as "foul mouthed" my suspicion rises and I laugh. I can just see this Ms Bennett down the pub this weekend f'ing and blinding like all journos - but all judgemental and superior when it comes to knocking others who talk like the rest of us in real life.

  • alisdaircameron alisdaircameron

    22 Aug 2010, 6:46PM

    @ Burgau205: link to the report please, so we can check your assertion, plus also see if any private sector study using the same methodology was involved.It's fanciful to even begin to suggest that private sector employees give 100% all day,every day.
    @ federalexpress. Be careful about fixing on 'productivity' measures, when contemplating public services.This relates to my earlier point that it's an entirely different operational environment to that with which Green is familiar.
    Supporters of public services must never fall into the trap of defending inefficiency or opposing changes that genuinely improve public services.However, attempts to measure public sector efficiency are almost always deeply flawed and narrow. Efficiency is simply a measure of outputs against inputs
    The problem is that the public sector does not lend itself to such crude measures. If you double class sizes and exam results only decline by a third, then that class has become more efficient. Yet the education system is worse as a result.Again, it's back to the duty to preserve the universal, to maintain the system that marks out the public sector.Quite different to the private sector where the system (including the market itself) is something to be gamed/exploited/subverted wherever possible.
    In too much discussion of the public sector, including amongst policy-makers themselves, productivity and effectiveness are often wrongly used as if they are interchangeable. But effectiveness is actually a very different measure – defined as the ratio of the outcomes which an organisation aims to achieve, divided by the total inputs. Thus, effectiveness in the public sector is a much more complex concept and is far more subject to measurement error and to influences from outside developments. Outcomes are far more elusive and trickier than outputs, more changeable, and conditional upon social & political vagaries and many,many other externalities.
    Those of us who argue for a public realm say that some activities simply do not lend themselves to private sector/market solutions, just as most of us accept the converse – that some activities should not be done by the state.One clue for where the boundary should lie comes from asking whether for any activities simple productivity measures make any sense.

  • shlick shlick

    22 Aug 2010, 6:49PM

    “When colleagues on the Guardian looked at BhS, around the time of the Safeway bid, Mr Green objected that its then financial editor, Paul Murphy, "can't read English. Mind you, he is a fucking Irishman"

    If someone said such a blatantly racist comment about a Jewish person it wouldn’t be allowed to be printed, would it?

  • Firstact Firstact

    22 Aug 2010, 7:39PM

    Catherine, you’re a brilliant writer but a terrible dunce at choosing subjects that interest readers. In an effort to boost your comment ratings (v poor) - and engage your large brain (too big for Top Shop) on weighty international subjects - here’s a suggested list of articles you could write (for starters) that might do the trick:

    Will Israel stop Iran getting the nuclear bomb?

    Why Al-Qaeda is militant Islam’s most successful brand

    What Peter Tatchell has to teach Muslim men

  • shlick shlick

    22 Aug 2010, 7:55PM

    Firstact
    22 Aug 2010, 7:39PM

    "Catherine, you’re a brilliant writer but a terrible dunce at choosing subjects that interest readers."

    What could interest readers more than the government which rules over them? Football? Celebs? Chat shows? Daytime tv?

    If people are apathetic regarding their rulers, they'll certainly be apathetic regarding the three subjects you mention.

    Al Qaeda, a brand? Bizarre.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Latest posts

Guardian Bookshop

This week's bestsellers

  1. 1.  American Caesars

    by Nigel Hamilton £25.00

  2. 2.  It's All About the Bike

    by Robert Penn £16.99

  3. 3.  Red Men

    by John Williams £16.99

  4. 4.  Finkler Question

    by Howard Jacobson £18.99

  5. 5.  Flavour Thesaurus

    by Niki Segnit £18.99

Sponsored features

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed