Alison Carnwarth: “I sometimes... don’t go to sleep at all because I’m anxious”

Why did Alison Carnwarth quit? Her last interview gives a few clues.

Alison Carnwarth has just quit her position on Barclays' board, continuing a series of resignations which has included Marcus Agius, Bob Diamond and Jerry del Missier.

Her statement read: “With regret I have concluded that I am no longer able to devote sufficient time to my role as a director of Barclays given my other commitments.”

She cited no other reasons, and her decision has left people speculating. But her most recent interview, given to economia magazine, gives a few clues. Here's an extract:

“None of us can be proud of how all this [Bob Diamond's renumeration package] was portrayed to the great British public.” She’s keen to point out that she is aware of the mood in the country, and what “people have had to put up with, ordinary people like you and me. When I’m not doing my job I’m an ordinary person. “But, remuneration and risks aside, to sit on the board of somewhere like Barclays, you have a window on how the world is working. You see where the capital flows are around the world, you see where the liquidity is, and you see where the stresses are in the financial system.”

Like any ordinary person, she worries. “I sometimes wake up worried – or don’t go to sleep at all because I’m anxious,” she says. “That’s not so good. Last night I lay awake fretting about something. I then have to stand up and somehow all the worry drains out of my feet, or I write things down."

She said that "a lot of pressures" had come to bear on the remuneration committee.

“It’s not easy, and we don’t always get it right. We clearly didn’t get it right this year. The shareholders were a little upset, although they weren’t upset in the same way as we’ve seen at other companies; our proposals did get through. But, whereas in previous years we would have got perhaps 85% voting in favour of our remuneration report, this year it was just over 70%. So clearly there were some major institutions that were not in agreement with what we did, and we must try to communicate better.”

“I’m very sensitive to the general feeling out there, when people are miserable and unemployed."

The full interview can be read in Friday's economia.

Barclays. Photograph, Getty Images.
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.