A 90-hour week an average of 13 hours a day seven days a week had he said played havoc with his relationship It is

A 90-hour week (an average of 13 hours a day, seven days a week) had, he said, played havoc with his relationship It is meant to elicit awe and sympathy. “Businesslike” has become a complimentary adjective, “political” a pejorative one. And unlike politicians, business people are taken by us at their own self-estimation. What’s in it for them indeed!”If only they’d let the businessmen run the country” is a common golf-club aphorism. And he moaned on: “What’s been in it for us, except an enormous amount of hard work and a great deal of slagging off?”Well, what on earth did he expect, this commander of commerce? Rendering public service is often a thankless task; but in this case what was going on was more like a damage-limitation exercise on behalf of the executives of Britain. It had been a big task, he whined, because “nobody agrees with anybody else, which makes it extremely difficult to steer a sensible course”. But Sir Richard ending up shopping his committee and confessing that he’d never even agreed with its recommendation in the first place.In fact, his entire performance at Thursday’s session of the Commons employment select committee, and the subsequent utterances of some of his fellow committee members, were extraordinary moments in the pay debate.Prior to slipping into the pinny with the cliche on it (“if you can’t stand the heat, etc”), Sir Richard, who earns pounds 800,000 a year, expressed his unhappiness with having to work in the open, subject to scrutiny and criticism.

Asda checkout ladies notwithstanding, millions of people who pay normal levels of tax on their salaries should welcome the decision. Sorry.Now I happen to think that both Greenbury (originally) and the Chancellor (latterly) were right, and that executive share option schemes have been a tax-avoiding scam. Members of the committee were left little alternative but to admit their mistake – they hadn’t thought it through And they hadn’t meant it. They wrestled and argued, debated and dissented, and eventually decided what should be done: such options should be subject to normal rates of taxation.Then, out of the blue, came unexpected horror: that devious politician, the Chancellor of Exchequer, decided to implement their recommendation. All had agreed that they should tackle executive share options.

Presided over by the chairman of Marks & Spencer, the chairmen of Whitbread, Rank, BP, BT, the director-general of the Institute of Directors – a veritable capo di tutti capi – and others pondered over how best to respond to public disquiet about boardroom greed.
The result was truly comic. The issue was, of course, executive pay and the committee the Greenbury committee. Supply loads of expert advice and give them a full six months to come up with a cunning plan And what do you get? A complete balls-up. On this score, the position is unchanged from one year ago: it is too early to say.. First take a big issue of state.