Stefano Pessina has done Ed Miliband a favour. By opining that a Labour government could be a “catastrophe” for Britain, the Monaco-based billionaire Italian boss of Walgreens Alliance Boots may have single-handedly won the opposition a few votes.
Pessina didn’t even bother to explain which Labour policies he finds objectionable, thus leaving himself open to the charge that he was talking up his book and hoping that Boots will continue to be paid, on the same terms as now, to dish out prescription medicines on behalf of the state.
Labour should welcome “attacks” of that sort every day until 7 May. Pessina is almost a caricature of a business bogeyman. He is the man who rehomed Alliance Boots to Switzerland. Then, when he merged the business into Walgreens of the US, even the local directors objected to his ambition to flip back to Switzerland. Walgreens said it was “mindful of the ongoing public reaction”.
If Pessina’s vague musings are irrelevant, should Labour worry about more intelligent interventions from non-Monégasque business leaders? The short answer is yes. It’s impossible to know if business opinion matters in general elections, but successful Labour administrations in the past have regarded it as helpful to have a few high-profile chairmen and chief executives in the camp.
These days, however, you would be hard pressed to name a single FTSE 100 boss who would come out for Labour. But there will probably be many who will sign a letter to the Telegraph or Times expressing sympathy with some Tory policy, or bemoaning the prospect of a return to a 50p top rate of income tax under Labour.
In the circumstances, there are two strategies available to the opposition. First, try to organise a retaliatory letter that demonstrates that the majority of business folk are firmly with Miliband on membership of European Union.
Second, do not be afraid to examine the tax and employment records of companies where the bosses are making political statements. It is entirely legitimate to do so. There is something vulgar about the way chief executives and chairmen feel free to attach the names of their employers to their pre-election letters to newspapers, inviting the inference that they are speaking on behalf of the whole company.
Bosses, at least at public companies, are hired hands. If they want to invoke the name of their employer in support of their political opinions, they should not be surprised if their policies on zero-hours contracts, tax and the like are put under the microscope.
Co-op stamp of approval
One strand of advice in Lord Myners’ blistering report last year was crystal clear: the Co-operative Group needs better and more experienced independent non-executive directors. So far, though, only Sir Christopher Kelly, author of his own Co-op report, has joined the revolution. Simon Burke, once of HMV, has also hopped aboard, but only for a “transitional” period ending in May this year.
Allan Leighton, if he joins as chairman, would represent a serious upgrade. He’s been around the block and earned his spurs at Asda in food retailing, an activity where the Co-op needs to get sharper in a hurry. From his Royal Mail days, Leighton also has experience of what might, euphemistically, be called an entrenched culture. He won’t be everybody’s cup of tea at the Co-op, but that, presumably, is the point.
Leighton’s arrival might also give confidence to would-be outside directors that a term on the Co-op board is a safe career move. He’s a promising hire.
Standard dithering
There are worse things in life than being paid a salary of £3,000 a day to do a job you’ve done for eight years, but Peter Sands at Standard Chartered may feel he deserves a better send-off than the one he’s receiving. Speculation on likely replacements for Sands comes daily. Public support from the bank’s two big shareholders – Aberdeen Asset Management and Temasek of Singapore – is conspicuous by its absence. Meanwhile, the share price grinds lower as City analysts downgrade their profit forecasts: another five-year low was recorded on Monday.
If Sands has run out of time, and if his $400m restructuring plan is deemed too little, too late, why doesn’t chairman Sir John Peace just confirm that change is afoot?
Changing a bank boss is never easy, and the task is made harder these days by regulators’ insistence on conducting a full checkup. But there is also a commercial danger in running for too long with a lame duck chief executive. Standard Chartered needs to get on with it.
