Banker Charlotte Hogg’s error is a cautionary tale for the privileged
|
Version 0 of 1. Charlotte Hogg is the economist who last month was made deputy governor, markets and banking, of the Bank of England. Hogg took up the role at the start of this month, and over the weekend the Treasury committee will decide where it stands on the matter. It would be wise to recommend that she can’t keep the role. Hogg’s troubles began when it emerged that she had not declared a potential conflict of interest, which is that her brother, Quintin Hogg, is a director of group strategy at Barclays, which the Bank of England regulates. At first Hogg told the Treasury select committee that she had declared this interest in 2013, when she first joined the institution as its chief operating officer. It has since emerged that Hogg did not declare it then, did not declare it during yearly compliance checks, did not consider the matter while she was actually helping to write the code of conduct, and did not declare it when she applied for the new job. Hogg has apologised for giving false information to the Treasury select committee, and that in itself is quite a big deal. It’s generally acknowledged that there’s nothing nefarious going on, that an actual conflict of interest has not yet arisen, and that a future conflict of interest is not likely. But the very fact that Hogg is in this tangle is significant. The trouble is that few people are likely to believe that not mentioning her brother’s job was an oversight. Even if they do, her judgment is still in question. It’s just not conceivable that the fact Hogg’s only sibling had a powerful post in a British bank would not have a place in her mind, even if thrust to the back of it. There are all sorts of private and psychological reasons why a sister might wish not to acknowledge a brother’s possible threat to her success. But so far a credible explanation has not been forthcoming. This is a story that it’s possible to have a lot of fun with. I rather loathe myself for resisting that temptation. Tub-thumping outrage against the posh and privileged is tremendously popular. But sometimes an attempt at dispassion is more helpful. Hogg is clearly regarded as tremendously bright and capable. She has been extremely well educated, at a top private girls’ school, then at Oxford and Harvard. Her career in finance has been impressive, even disregarding the privilege she grew up with. But that privilege is manifold. Hogg’s mother is Sarah Hogg, the distinguished journalist and now life peer. Her father, the third Viscount Hailsham, served in John Major’s government and, yes, is the man whose career as an MP ended when it was found that the cleaning of the family seat’s moat had been charged to expenses. There is plenty of opportunity for railing against establishment and entitlement here. British people have been railing against such privilege for nigh on a century now. It has not, the evidence suggests, taken us much closer to mutual understanding. On the contrary, it seems only to have made the most fortunate of people start feeling like victims who have to fight hard for their very survival. Really, if the class warriors of the UK want to make a more equitable society, making their powerful quarry feel justified in defending themselves against all comers, in any way they can, is not the most sensible way to go about it. It’s wiser to assume that Hogg would genuinely be a huge loss to the Bank of England, then take a look at some of the reasons why she might have felt comfortable in failing to declare her brother’s position. Much time is squandered telling people to “check their privilege”. Not so much is spent explaining that failing to understand how privilege works can lead people to damage themselves as well as others. Clearly, people run the risk of feeling over-entitled. They believe strongly in rules, but develop a belief that they are the people who make the rules, not the people who follow them. They assume their own judgment is so sound that their private assessment of a particular situation is all that is needed – is better, really, because they have all the information regarding their own case. Privileged people also run the risk of mistakenly believing that what’s good for them is good for everybody. In fact, they are told this all the time. Look after the wealthy and clever and they will look after everyone else – that’s the moral basis of capitalism, and it’s a crock. Conservatives believe this absolutely. People are unforgiving of New Labour because (among other reasons) it thought it could make that principle a cornerstone of social democracy. It could not. Finally, of course, privileged people assume, often rightly, that no one is going to hold them to account. The rest of us are used to being judged and found wanting. Privileged people experience such a thing only ritually, at school. Once in charge, they believe they are done with such childish things, and can’t conceive of circumstances in which they will be judged – especially when convinced of their own rectitude. Charlotte Hogg has been judged and found wanting, for something small but hugely significant. It’s a shame. But the important thing here is not that she’s “made an example of”. It’s that she, and the rest of us, try to understand the many ways in which her odd, self-destructive behaviour was sadly predictable. |