Would a mansion tax burst London's bubble?

The mansion tax has brought the legitimacy of foreign investment back onto the conversational agenda in recent days. A mansion tax to fund the NHS based on a valuation threshold of £2m would encompass many properties in London. At face value, it is difficult to argue with this given the meteoric rise of property prices in the capital. But is it fair?

The dictionary definition of a "mansion" is "a very large dwelling house". In the US, realtors define a mansion as a dwelling of in excess of 7,000 square feet. A traditional European mansion was defined historically as a house which contained a ballroom and tens of bedrooms.

On a daily basis, I see internet advertisements from Right Move and Prime Location for prime properties in central London that range from a £46.5m family home in Hampstead and a £40m penthouse in the Candy Brothers' One Hyde Park development to a £30.5m Mayfair terraced house with four bedrooms. Faced with options such as these for clients, I find myself rationalising that £6m more for a family home in Hampstead is actually much better value per square foot than a penthouse apartment in Knightsbridge. No matter how hard I try, I struggle to wrap my head around the concept of anything with the words "terraced" and "four bedrooms" sitting in the same sentence as numbers that contain millions, even when the address is in Mayfair. All of these properties, however, would meet either the US or European definition of a mansion. The proposed mansion tax though, would catch all properties that are valued in excess of £2m, which would included 2/3 bedroom apartments and small houses with minimal square footage. There are many roads in Kensington and Chelsea, where homes are frequently worth in excess of £5m, which are owned by families who have lived in the area for generations and owned the properties for decades. These people are often not in the same stratosphere as the foreign buyers who have become their neighbours in recent years, and would likely be crippled by a compulsory annual tax based purely on the value of their home.

The willingness of foreign investors to pay for prime Central London properties is undoubtedly creating a bubble. The fundamental question is when will it burst?  Some who find the mansion tax objectionable argue that it will deter foreign investment and this would disadvantage London versus its competitors around the world. This may well be the case although it is important to remember that many foreign investors acquiring London real estate are seeking a safe haven for their funds. A quantifiable tax may be a relatively small price to pay for the knowledge that your assets are safe and within your control. Similarly, all talk of a bubble must be acknowledged in the context that the decision-making parameters for foreign investors are often very different from those who are accustomed to the comfort of living in a democracy like Britain. A Russian oligarch, for example, may not be overly concerned about a 5% move in the London property market because he knows that in one, two or three years time, he will still own the property and it will not have been seized by the Government.

The only bubble that will be burst by the implementation of the mansion tax will be that of British Londoners. It will make getting onto the property ladder in Central London even more prohibitive, driving British Londoners out of the capital, and perhaps even out of the country, thereby losing valuable tax revenues as well. The price of Central London property prices may dip but they will remain buoyant as long as London is perceived as a safe haven for foreign money. Perhaps the more pertinent question is whether it is time to recognise London as a City State separate from the rest of the UK since the drivers of the London economy appear to be entirely different from other parts of the country - if London had a referendum, would the answer be "Better Together"...?

Bankers expect neither love nor hate; it's time for the rest of the world to embrace such pragmatism

In 2008, the financial community was dealt a catastrophic blow by the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the near-collapse of other Wall Street stalwarts including Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Since 2008, the reputation of the financial community has been steadily eroded further with one scandal after another, building upon the sub-prime crisis and culminating recently with ongoing accusations and fines for LIBOR and forex rate fixing.

Few bankers would argue against the fact that the behaviour of financial institutions has shone a light on some unnecessarily bad practices. Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, commented earlier this year: "It's going to be a long time before most people in the world are in love with bankers, but that is not going to stop us from working hard to be a better institution". Mr Blankfein is probably correct, and there is a significant amount of effort required to rebuild public trust in financial institutions. Bankers, however, never expected the world to be in love with them. Equally, they find it unpalatable that the world continues to hate them.

 

Bankers can certainly be accused of being in love with themselves sometimes, and the allure of a career in investment banking as glamorous and sexy remains as investment banks on Wall Street and in the City of London continue to receive record numbers of applications. Veteran investment bankers are, however, more wary now of admitting to their profession at a dinner party. They are the new estate agents at a drinks reception. In general, bankers expected to be left alone to do their jobs, earn their crust, and carry on with their lives. For the most part, this is precisely what they do and did. It is a small number of bankers, most of whom are no longer operational within the industry, who brought the financial community into disrepute in recent years, yet everyone is tarred with the same brush.

 

The press has a great deal for which to answer. Every time a major financial institution releases results, the press finds a new way to attack the management and the pay, with little distinction in relation to banks which have received bailouts from the taxpayer or otherwise, or the number of people within an institution for whom the multi-million dollar bonuses are relevant. The press tends to report selectively on the issues facing financial institutions, and the backdrop against which decisions are made in relation to executive remuneration. Let's take two examples:

 

1. Barclays: executive remuneration is criticised because it is excessive even in the face of declining profits. Barclays was never a recipient of a taxpayer bailout, and is therefore answerable only to its shareholders. The structure of executive pay has been altered substantially since the crisis, with significant proportions of bonuses deferred as long-term stock participation in the firm, thereby aligning the interests of shareholders and executives.

 

2. RBS: clearly a different case from Barclays, as a recipient of monstrous state aid. Since 2008, however,  RBS has changed dramatically. Its balance sheet has shrunk by £1tn of assets, while headcount has been reduced by more than 40,000, and the bank has pulled out of 26 countries and scaled back its wholesale activities. The focus of the press, despite all of the aforementioned progress, is on the bonus pool for 2013/2014 which was £576m against losses of £8.2bn. Optically, any remuneration in a year that generates losses may look as though the financial industry continues to reward for failure. There is a strong counter-argument, however, that a financial institution that was as severely distressed as RBS, needs to be led back to health by the strongest possible management team. In order to attract the strongest team, it must be paid competitively. These executives could attract job offers from multiple other sources that would, arguably, be less challenging. Ultimately, if the taxpayer is to recoup its investment in RBS, it is critical that the best professionals are selected for the job.

 

One of the recurring arguments in this debate is that the existence, structure and culture of bonuses encourages bankers to take excessive risks. Increased regulation has sought to address these concerns with the implementation of measures such as the EU bonus cap, which prevents the payment of bonuses of more than 100% of fixed pay unless a bank has shareholder approval to increase the level to 200%. The response of financial institutions is to create new remunerative structures in order to ensure they are competitive in the global marketplace and able to hire and retain the best people. These approaches include increasing basic salary or, in the case of HSBC, for example, bolstering base salaries with "fixed pay allowances". Whilst this reduces the pot of cash that is labelled "bonus pool", which proves so emotive in Britain's press, an increase to base salary or a reliance on fixed pay allowances is an optical illusion, moving cash from one pot to another, ultimately ending up in the same place, but fundamentally reducing the flexibility of banks to cut costs quickly in the event of a crisis which the bonus structure delivered. An allowance payment or an increased basic salary has to be automatic so incentivisation and discretionary rewards are reduced. Unlike bonuses, there is no chance of a bank being able to clawback these payments in the event of a crisis.

 

Make no mistake, bankers earn a significant amount of money, certainly substantially more than an average man on the street. They also work absurdly long hours and make significant personal sacrifices in terms of travelling, working weekends and missing family occasions such as birthdays or Christmas. They don't expect anyone to feel sorry for them; that is part of the job. In the post-financial crisis world, the earning potential of an investment banker is significantly less as there is more regulation, arguably less dealflow, as well as increased remuneration in stock. Again, they do not expect sympathy; it is their choice.

 

The press and the public need to be cognisant of perpetuating the backlash against bankers. The ever increasing burden of regulation for financial institutions and restrictions on remuneration mask inherent risks:

• If London and Europe continue to be hostile lands for bankers and banks, the best people will choose to leave and seek employment in more benign geographies and industries. This will not benefit the taxpayer, the country or the financial institutions which continue to face challenges in recovering from the crisis

• The response of regulators to continued public outrage at banker pay threatens to create precisely the situation that the regulations seek to avoid: locking financial institutions into an inescapable cycle of excessive pay through fixed salaries, with no risk adjustment aligned to performance and zero discretionary element.

It is time to stop the emotional backlash to the financial community, and move towards the future with a more pragmatic approach that actually addresses the underlying issues and risks.

 

 

"Not choice, but habit rules the unreflecting herd"

So William Wordsworth wrote in his Ecclesiastical Sonnets of 1888. The dictionary definition of "habit" is "a recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behaviour that is acquired through frequent repetition" or "an established disposition of the mind or character".

We are conditioned as children to form good habits, whether that is saying "thank you" and "please" when we want something, not picking our nose, sharing and waiting our turn, saying "sorry" when we have done something wrong. Ultimately, a lot of what we are taught as children encourages us to recognise and then respect boundaries. We form basic habits that equip us for life, without questioning whether they are good or bad.

So are all habits essentially bad for the mind? We all know about the bad habits such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sugar, fast food. These are bad for both body and mind. Healthy eating and exercise are, for example, good habits that we are encouraged to form. Undoubtedly, these activities are beneficial for our body and mind. But is there an argument that even good habits are bad for us once we have stopped questioning the position that they hold in our lives? 

Jobs and relationships seem to be two areas in which this could be true. Many people remain in both jobs and relationships that are well past their sell-by date in terms of what suits them best. Often, in both instances, there are extenuating factors which prevent them from moving on, whether that be financial concerns in relation to a job, or the impact on children or finances where a relationship or marriage is concerned. Beyond these fundamental concerns, many of us spend a significant proportion of our lives, trying to pretend that we are happy with our lot or burying our true feelings about our lives beneath the surface, which in themselves become habitual behaviour.

Is it true that as soon as something becomes a habit, we have lost our ability to interrogate rationally its position in our lives because we have developed a resigned acceptance of its presence? Such laziness prevents us from having true freedom of thought and reaction.

The ultimate goal surely must be to be comfortable enough with the natural boundaries in one's life and mind to be free from all habits, and to make definitive choices about as many things as possible in our lives.

Sense of entitlement

I was brought up to believe that you work hard for what you earn, and that you should not expect something for nothing. My parents arrived to the UK as immigrants from Ireland and worked incredibly hard for every penny they earned. I was encouraged to work throughout my university education, having been given the very best education that my parents could afford. It was a good lesson; very few people achieve great success without a lot of hard work. One of my father’s favourite quotes is by famous film producer, Samuel Goldwyn: “The harder I work, the luckier I get…”

In today’s society, we have a problem with those who claim benefits and social welfare illegitimately. We also have a problem with those who are obscenely wealthy. Personally, I have a problem with those who do work and have jobs but have a persistent chip on their shoulder about how everyone else is luckier than them, how they are so hard done by and how they are deserving of a much better existence. This sense of entitlement is incredible; I can’t help but wonder why they feel entitled to a much better life when they are unwilling to do anything to help themselves to achieve a better outcome?

Having started my career in the unforgiving environment of investment banking, I admit readily that I am probably quite difficult to work for and my standards are relentlessly high. To me, however, a commitment to high standards and to working hard is a basic requirement for achieving success. As a junior investment banker, I worked 90 – 100 hours per week almost every week for five years, and then 80 – 90 hours for week for a further four years. Three years running, I had to cancel Christmas because of a live deal. I got Christmas Day off but that was it. One year, I didn’t have a day of holiday for an entire year because I was involved constantly in live deals so there was no space for a holiday. I didn’t and don’t expect sympathy from anybody for this. It was my choice and it gave me the optionality that I have now in relation to my career and has afforded the opportunity to start my own business. I am grateful for the experience. It was always abundantly clear that if you didn’t like it, there were thousands of people who would happily take your place.

Having jumped from the world of investment banking to being an entrepreneur running my own business 18 months ago, the most challenging aspect is managing some people who share neither my ambition nor dedication. At the beginning of my entrepreneurial adventure, I hired the fiancée of my hairdresser to help me in relation to basic administrative/PA duties in the hope that she could grow into the business and have a career or at the very minimum a concrete role as my PA. With the benefit of hindsight, this was very foolish but I felt sorry for her and I believed she deserved a chance. Whilst she was essentially an unskilled worker, she was bright and industrious and I thought that her commitment to furthering herself was a demonstration of her intelligence as much as any qualification would have been. There was limited work to begin with but I paid her a fair wage every week regardless. Increasingly, however, the more fair I was, the more she asked for. Although there was no more than 20 hours work per week for six months, and she was being paid for 40 hours, she wanted holiday pay and in advance. When she returned from holiday, I asked her to attend a meeting and she asked me to move the meeting as she was very tired after a late flight and it would be easier if the meeting took place on a different day. Perhaps I had missed something but last time I checked a job was not designed to make the life of an employee easier…

It became clear quickly that this girl was someone who thought that because she said that she was there to help with anything, this was enough to show that she meant it, even if there was no intention to follow through with demonstrable action. She played expertly the card of an insecure young girl lacking in confidence, constantly thanking me for everything and for giving her an opportunity. Again, it seemed that by just saying thank you she felt that this showed she meant it sincerely. I didn’t want or need “thank you” though. I needed someone who was proactive, efficient and keen to learn.

As the admin tasks increased with the business, I realised that her attention to detail was not up to scratch. We missed securing tables at a restaurant opening for clients because she had not communicated effectively with the PR company; the details of partners and clients that she had input to my contacts database were misspelled on a regular basis. Despite asking her to go through the contacts a further three times, the legacy of the problem remains as I have the Chairman of the Premier League listed as Chairman of the “Primier League” and whenever I send or receive an email from Rory Godson, he shows up as “Rogy Godson”. When provided with feedback on her performance, the girl cried and said she felt that everyone was watching her and no one believed her. Quite why anyone would expect not to be supervised doing a job is beyond me.

I began to question myself; was I being unreasonable in terms of the expectations I had of her? I felt that I had tried to be fair but I was conscious that my background made me very uncompromising so I gave her another chance. When she called me at 10:30pm at night, breathlessly explaining that she was too stressed to sleep and she needed to know that I thought she was doing a good job, I was stunned at her lack of either judgement or professionalism. I explained calmly, however, that, while I thought she was a very sweet girl, I was neither her friend nor her therapist. I told her that I just needed her to do a good job, and that if she did this she had nothing  to worry about. She said that she understood and then proceeded to tell other employees that she was upset because I never asked how she was… Unable to cope with the tears and histrionics, I passed her off to be managed by my Events team, who found that she was unable to complete basic data inputting tasks within a reasonable timeframe. Despite being told repeatedly to ask questions in order to learn and progress, she never did so. In fact, the only time she asked questions or asserted herself was to query her managers and explain how uncomfortable it made her that they questioned her efficiency and productivity.

Just before Christmas, I held a meeting at our new house. This was foolish. The day after the meeting, the girl wrote me an email, explaining that she thought she deserved a pay increase. I refused the request on the basis that she was still not working anything close to 40 hours per week and had delivered zero added value to the business. Once I started thinking about what I was paying her against her delivery, I came to the conclusion that the arrangement was not working. In a larger company, she would never have survived the first few months and in an investment bank she would never have made the grade to get a job in the first place. In my start-up, she was given chance after chance with no demonstrable progression in terms of attitude, understanding or skills over the course of a year. It took me a month to tell her that I was terminating her position. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that I was concerned about her reaction. I anticipated that the conversation would not go well but I had expected tears and angst, which I hate.

Instead, I found myself on the receiving end of calculated vitriol, which was easier though surprising. Her behaviour post-termination confirmed what I thought all along; she was a bright girl. Her attention to deal in terms of arguing her case for additional pay and holiday pay was commendable, though all the more notable given that such skills had been so glaringly absent in relation to anything required by her job. When I refused to make any additional discretionary payments, she went on the offensive with insults such as “I think the problem here is that you can’t afford me” and multiple instructions along the lines of “you have to pay me £930”. There were moments where I was beginning to wonder who worked for who? Had I got it all upside down?

In response to this, I attempted to remain measured and fair, saying:

I’m sorry it has come to this. You have always known that Vita nel Lusso was a start-up company, and that there would be no training. I gave you an opportunity as a favour... If my understanding is correct, you had been unemployed for a year until I gave you the opportunity.

Your tasks at Vita nel Lusso were basic. You have had a year to learn from very good people – training was unnecessary. I need people who want to be part of the business in the long-term. Sadly, I just do not think it is for you. You are a bright girl but fundamentally an unskilled worker who has been paid a very fair wage in relation to the hours worked.

 In relation to the phone, you were told many times to arrange the phone and I would cover the cost. Instead of problems, you ought to have delivered solutions. 

As before, my position remains the same. If you prefer not to accept, I wish you the very best for the future.

She was arguing that I should pay a £50 phone bill for her house phone. I had told her repeatedly to get a blackberry and I would cover the cost. She never did. Finally, her boyfriend bought her a blackberry but she never contacted the company IT guy to resolve connectivity issues. It also took her five months to add a signature to her email address. Her response to this was: “This isn’t fair” and “I don’t need to spend my money to buy a new phone. You needed to buy it and give it to me. But you didn’t”. Given that she was supposed to be acting in some capacity as a PA, I am still unclear as to why I should have been sorting out her phone…

The saga rolled on and over the Christmas period and into 2014. I offered to pay her everything that she was owed in relation to hours that she had worked. She wanted more and told me she had spoken with a barrister. I handed the matter to my lawyer after which the matter was quickly settled on the terms I had offered originally, and I received an email saying: “I want to finish this chapter and I want to move on”. Alleluia! You and me both…

Imagine my shock then when I heard from a client on 3^rd January that she had been in touch with him, offering to continue working for him but undercutting us on price. From a girl who had always told me she was cripplingly lacking in confidence and paranoid about getting everything right, and very shy, I found this quite a turnaround in character. I sent her an email, explaining that it was inappropriate to poach clients, and that such juvenile behaviour vindicated entirely my decision to terminate her employment. The response was: “This is just one of the lies that you came up with and trust me I know a lot more of them. Also I never thought that somebody can twist all this situation as you did. Apparently, I am a bad person, but god is watching and good luck to you with your life and your lies. And please stop bothering me right now!”

Extraordinary behaviour. I finished the conversation, conceding that if it helped her to feel better by convincing herself that I had lied, it was her prerogative. I didn’t lie. Lies did not come into it. The decision of termination was a professional decision based on the needs of the business and the performance of an employee. Getting dragged into an emotional debate in a professional scenario was uncomfortable.

I can only hope that she learned some lessons throughout the process and will draw on the situation to move forward in life with a more mature attitude. Otherwise, I fear life will be one disappointment after another, where everyone else is in the wrong. I know that I certainly learned some valuable lessons:

i)                  Never give anybody a job because you feel sorry for them or as a favour

ii)                Never assume that employees operate on the same professional wavelength as you

iii)              Never allow the boundaries of personal and professional to become blurred. The moment I invited her to my house, her perception of me changed, together with her expectations in relation to what she was entitled to from me

iv)              Never hire the fiancée of your hairdresser; my biggest problem for the new year is to find a new salon that does great highlights…

Equality

The dictionary definition of equality is “the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability”. The concept of equality is premised upon equal treatment of people irrespective of superficial factors such as sex, sexuality, race or creed. There has been much debate about the extent of equality in business, especially between men and women. In this context, the debate must be predicated on the basis that the fundamental qualifications, experience and ability of the men and women in question are equal in order for an assessment of equality to be fair. This discussion rages now as forcefully as ever, despite there being more opportunities for women in modern, democratic societies than at any other time in history.

There can be no doubt that in modern, democratic societies women enjoy enormously enriched lives compared to only a few decades previously. The scope to pursue a career is infinite. No longer is it accepted nor expected that women stay at home. Make no mistake, we have come a very long way and made tremendous progress. This makes it even more peculiar that the same complaints continue time after time: women are not being provided with the same opportunities as their male counterparts in business; there is a glass ceiling; there is not enough female representation on the boards of public companies; quotas are necessary in order to redress the balance between senior men and women in business; sexism is rife in the City; if more women had been on the boards of banks, the financial crisis would never have happened; and so the list goes on.  

At the heart of this complaint is an inherent assumption that the smaller number of senior women in business versus male counterparts is a result of discrimination. This implies that individuals holding the position of Chairman at public companies overlook female board candidates in favour of equal or lesser male board candidates. This assumption is fundamentally flawed. At the heart of the role of a board of directors for a public company is its fiduciary duty to shareholders. Public companies are ultimately owned by shareholders and are, therefore, answerable to them. One of the key objectives of a board is to maximise shareholder value. Other typical duties of a board of directors include governing the organisation by establishing board policies and objectives; selecting, appointing, supporting and reviewing the performance of the Chief Executive; ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources; approving annual budgets; accounting to stakeholders for the performance of the organisation; and setting the salaries and compensation of company management. These duties are broad and complex, all the more so when the companies in question are sprawling multi-jurisdictional establishments with many different types of businesses sitting beneath the umbrella name of the public company. Boards need, therefore, to be comprised of senior individuals who have the necessary and appropriate experience and skills to carry out this role. The Chairman of the board needs individuals upon whom he / she can rely to maintain sound judgement in pressurised, complex situations, and to draw on their usually vast experience. It is simply ridiculous to imply that these serious professionals are wilfully ignoring female candidates because they prefer to elect a male peer from the “old boys’ network”. To do so would potentially undermine their fiduciary duty to shareholders because the board would not be equipped necessarily to fulfil adequately those duties. While studies have indeed demonstrated that properly diversified boards are less prone to the mistakes of “group think”, and more likely to increase shareholder value, improve the flow of creative thought and encourage a greater understanding of customers and employees, this must be correct as long as the quality and calibre of the skillset of a board is not compromised for the sake of diversity.  This is a path that we are dangerously close to since Brussels mandated that at least 40% of the board seats of large European companies need to be occupied by women by 2020. The EU-wide plan will introduce procedures whereby companies may be coerced into hiring a female candidate over an equally qualified male candidate. Whilst there is no problem with this in principle, since the candidates are equal, it is a very small step from this to mandatory quotas. Thankfully, Brussels has stopped short of this, amidst a cacophony of objection from eleven countries, one of the most vocal of which was the UK.

One of the biggest problems with quotas is that, ultimately, they risk undermining the achievement and legitimacy of women who sit currently on boards, and have been elected through a meritocratic process. One of the most frequently heard arguments in favour of quotas is that “the men are not listening”. This aligns all of the responsibility with “the men”. It is up to women as much, if not more so, as it is up to men to correct the balance, if they want to. For successful, respected businesswomen such as Helena Morrisey to advocate a quota of 30% women on the boards of public companies whilst simultaneously explaining that in order to be successful as a career woman, one must marry a man who is content to be a house husband, and relinquish his own ambition, does no favours to women who would like to hold a senior position one day. Another argument in favour of female board quotas is that, once on the board, women would be more likely to hire more women. There are two flaws to this argument. Firstly, this would be replacing the old boys’ network with the old girls’ network. To call this progress would be hypocrisy of the worst kind. That the best person for a position should always be chosen seems to be missed entirely by this argument. Secondly, the idea of a sisterhood is a falsehood. In business, it is survival of the fittest. The default setting of serious professionals is “ambitious”, “competitive” and perhaps sometimes “aggressive” and “ruthless” but certainly not “nice”. Everyone is measured by their relative success. Of course you have to prove yourself. Respect is not given freely; it must be earned. This is true for men as well as for women. Whilst I have encountered numerous women during my career who are incredibly supportive of fellow women, I have encountered just as many who are equally, sometimes more, inclined to backstab and stand on one another as their male counterparts. I have also encountered numerous men who have been incredibly supportive of my professional development. The stark truth is: there are men in business who do, and do not, support women and there are women in business who do, and do not, support women. That is called life; it is not called inequality.

In my experience during ten years as an investment banker, the women who want to break through the glass ceiling have done and are doing so. The uncomfortable truth is that many women are simply not willing to make the sacrifices required to make it to the top. It is, actually, impossible for women to “have it all”. It is equally impossible for men to “have it all”. The fundamental difference between these two statements is that men do not want it all, and they have never done so. Women need to realise this.

Instead of fighting for quotas, and bemoaning how unfair and unequal life is, women need to toughen up and demonstrate that we are capable of effecting change instead of simply expecting it. We need to stop talking and start doing. Some of the results of the recent election in the United States of America are examples of this. Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts has just become the first state female senator to be voted into office; Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is the nation’s first openly gay Senator; Deb Fisher is the first woman to represent Nebraska in the Senate since 1954; and the state of New Hampshire sent the nation’s first all-female congressional delegation. These women have fought for their positions in society by demonstrating that they are worthy. The current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has encountered criticism for failing to meet targets for female MPs. Margaret Thatcher, the first ever female Prime Minister, neither introduced nor adhered to quotas for women. Despite this, the representation of female MPs had increased by 37% from the time she came to power (27 female MPs) to the time she left Downing Street in 1990 (43female MPs). It is important to note that this increase was not because Margaret Thatcher embraced the sisterhood and promoted more women. It was because by succeeding as first female prime minister, and demonstrating that it could be done, she inspired a generation of women to believe that it was possible.  Shirley Williams, who encountered Thatcher when she was a Labour Cabinet minister during the 1970s has commented: “She did very little by being a woman, she did it by being herself…”. Julie Kirkbride, who was inspired by Margaret Thatcher and became a Conservative MP, explained that Thatcher demonstrated “if you are the right person and are the best, there is no glass ceiling”. Thatcher stated early in her career in 1952 – “Should a woman arise equal to the task, I say let her have an equal chance with the men for leading Cabinet posts…”. The most important word here is “equal”, reiterated twice. Thatcher did not ask for quotas, nor did she introduce targets for the number of female MPs in her Cabinet. In fact, by 1982, Thatcher commented in a lecture that “the battle for women’s rights has largely been won…The days when they were demanded and discussed in strident tones should be gone forever. I hate those strident tones we hear from Women’s Libbers”. I think Margaret Thatcher had it right. Instead of pleading to be treated equally, she got on with it, proved she was as good, if not better, than any of her male counterparts at that time. One can only wonder what Thatcher must think about Nadine Dorries choosing to risk her political career to disappear to the jungle for the reality television show “I’m a Celebrity – Get Me Out of Here”. Whether a male MP would do this or not, who knows? The bottom line is that Nadine Dorries was in a position of responsibility. By disappearing to the jungle to appear on a frivolous show, and have headlines written about her that include “Nadine Dorries munches her way through camel toe and ostrich anus”, is an abnegation of her responsibility and a demonstration of  a wilful disregard for her constituents. It is unacceptable and deeply unhelpful to women.

The sense of entitlement demonstrated by many women now, and the misunderstood notion that equality means promotion without the requisite skills, experience or behaviour is reflective of the sad situation in broader society where many young girls’ aspirations are to “be famous” or to “be a celebrity”. Many celebrities are famous for the sake of being famous, having achieved very little of tangible or measurable value. They add very little to society. The only way to increase the number of senior women in business is to teach young girls that an education is one of the most valuable tools with which we can equip ourselves. Girls should learn that squandering an education is profligate and wasteful. Girls should take note of Malala Yousafazi, the fifteen year old Pakistani girl who was shot and seriously injured because of her fight against the Taliban for girls to be educated. This girl is someone to be truly admired and watched in the future. At fifteen, Malala Yousafazi has proved her tenacity and courage. By the end of her current difficult journey, she will have likely forgotten more about bravery and resilience than most of us will, thankfully, ever know.

Our society has a chasm in its approach towards women. At one end of the spectrum, it rages that there is not enough female representation at senior levels of business. At the other, it encourages girls and young women to embrace popular culture on an unprecedented level and encourages the celebration of vacuous parasitic personalities. Until this imbalance is redressed, there will continue to be a gender gap. The biggest mistake that we can make is to try to attribute this to discrimination instead of acknowledging a) that there are fundamental flaws in the way in which society encourages the aspirations of young women; and b) the uncomfortable truth that even if the imbalance is redressed, there may still not be equal numbers of competent and qualified women and men. Perhaps, inconvenient and uncomfortable though it may be, some women are not cut out for a life in a serious and often ruthless business environment.

Polly Courtney, the self-described “accidental author” has written extensively about how liberating it was to leave a life in the City, which had been one of “monotony, sexism, long hours and loneliness”. Having started life as a junior investment banker, this is something I understand, apart from the second point. Monotony, long hours and loneliness are part of the sacrifice that has to be made to survive. The life of a junior investment banker is tough. The environment is hostile; it is aggressive and it is not for shrinking violets. You will be shouted at if you make a mistake; you were hired because you were supposed to be smart enough to get it right. This intolerance of error is not specific to women. It is specific to all junior investment bankers. Incompetence is not tolerated. I started my investment banking career at Lehman Brothers. We were a class of 69 graduates, of varying shades of colour, multiple creeds, male, female, gay and straight. We were so diverse that Lehman Brothers even had a transgender committee. None of this mattered. At 3am with a pitch due at 9am, it did not matter who you were or what you looked like. You were at the coalface, working yourself to the bone. Everyone who has been a junior investment banker has a story such as Polly Courtney; everyone has made restaurant bookings, gone to get coffees, and been woken up at 3am to return to the office. I had to wait for four hours in a taxi once to deliver a presentation to a Managing Director because his letterbox was too small to post it and I was not allowed to ring the doorbell to wake him up. This happened to at least six of my male counterparts as well so it was difficult to attribute it to sexism. If you succeed in making it through the first five years, you understand suddenly that the training, experience and knowledge gained is a wonderful platform from which to build a successful career across many different fields and industries. As a case in point, despite Polly having spent only two years as an investment banker, she has used it to launch herself successfully as an author. For women to claim that the City is sexist is, more often than not, an excuse to explain their departure from a job with which they are unwilling or unable to cope. I agree with whoever was the glamorous blonde in the suit who seduced Polly Courtney to a City life. It is not all about the money. It is the fast pace, the exciting work and the opportunity to be a part of global transactions 24/7.

Investment banks make a huge effort to recruit young female graduates. The mantra of diversity has become almost obsessive in some institutions. I attended multiple recruitment events to try to attract the best and most promising female talent to a career as an M&A investment banker. It was an insurmountable challenge because many female graduates, regardless of ability, were not interested because of stories about sexism, long hours and a macho aggressive culture. I find it unacceptable to criticise the City so unjustifiably and then expect it to reward us with tokenist board positions. Given the paltry numbers of women who enter graduate schemes, such as those offered at investment banks, it is hardly surprising that, through a process of natural attrition, the endgame is a very reduced pool of senior female talent.

It is important to note, however, that this small pool of senior female talent is comprised of women who are talented, intelligent, tenacious and resilient. They have proved their worth in a male dominated world and, by and large, are hugely respected. All of the successful senior women I know share the same hallmarks: they are consummate professionals; they are excellent at their jobs; they are feminine and empathetic when necessary; they are tough and uncompromising when necessary; they do not expect to be treated differently because they are women; they are confident in their own ability; they enjoy career longevity. Again, Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. Thatcher’s advertising adviser, Lord Bell, commented that her “constant femininity shined in the way she dealt with issues” and that “she sometimes used it to her advantage”. Women today could learn a great deal from Thatcher. Lord Bell added in a 2005 interview: “She was in a world dominated by men and one of the things men are very bad at is handling women”.

Instead of pushing for meaningless quotas, and damaging the bandwagon onto which they are jumping, it would be sensible for women to stop complaining and focus instead on working hard, doing their job, impressing the people who need to be impressed. Serious professional men are more than willing to engage with and promote serious professional women. People work for people, and smart people want to have the smartest, most intelligent people working for and with them, irrespective of their gender. The sooner women realise this, the sooner we can stop perpetuating our own glass ceiling. Ultimately, it is women who need to understand finally that equality must equal equality.