BT boss Patterson's departure highlights gulf between business, the City, and the rest of the UK

City scribblers don't see his pay and bonuses as an issue, but the wider public, not to mention BT's unhappy workforce, does

BT boss Gavin Patterson is stepping down (Getty)

The announcement of Gavin Patterson’s impending departure as CEO of BT after 14 years in post serves to highlight the yawning gulf between business, the City of London and the rest of the UK.

Before writing I flicked through three notes notes issued in its wake by, respectively, UBS, Jeffries and AJ Bell, that landed in my inbox.

They noted the reports of unhappiness with Mr Patterson among some of BT’s big investors. The made reference to the company’s disappointing fourth quarter results. The highlighted the poor performance of the shares over a sustained period. The spoke of the strained relations with Government and regulators that the installation of a new boss could reset.

Significantly, however, none of them mentioned Mr Patterson’s pay, and the fact that he took a bonus and got a raise in the wake of that lacklustre performance, the details of which were announced just a couple of weeks after he had unveiled plans to fire 13,000 of his colleagues.

The timing could hardly have been worse, juxtaposing the largesse granted to the BT boss with the pain being endured by his underlings, facing up to an uncertain future.

That is the sort of thing that can, and does, do damage to brands and corprate reputations. It also feeds into a wider perception that the upper echelons of British business are populated by a self interested and out of touch elite.

It was certainly heard by BT’s unhappy workforce, on whose efforts an improved performance will ultimately rest.

Yet none of those three thought to mention it. While some scribblers probably did, that is very telling.

It's not just BT, the analysts that cover it, the institutions that invest in it.

The blindness to the divide between business and the wider public was also on display at the Business, Enterprise & Industrial Strategy select committee’s hearing into on pay, attended by the remuneration committee chairs of Persimmon and Weir Group, that I wrote on earlier this week.

It is harmful not just to business, but to the wider economy too, because, while the business lobby is too often guilty of indulging in naked self interest with what it puts out, it sometimes does have worthwhile points to make. Those points are not getting heard.

One example of that came earlier this week with the reports that EU car makers are in talks about rejecting British-made parts because of the destructive approach it is pursuing when it comes to Brexit.

John Neill, chief executive officer of Unipart, which supplies car manufacturers with components and spare parts, warned it had long been telling ministers “clearly about these risks” to no avail.

It’s not just Brexit. Another example would be the valid criticisms business has made of the government’s apprenticeship policy and the levy it imposed to fund it.

If ministers don't feel the electorate isn't paying attention, if they feel that it, in fact, views business with contempt, then why should they pay any attention?

Back to Mr Patterson. Perhaps some of the members of BT’s board saw the danger of the backlash over his pay, and bonus, and while supportive of his strategy, decided the company needed a new face, someone unencumbered by the sins of the past. Perhaps they realised that BT will struggle to revive itself if its workforce aren't in lockstep behind their bosses, and if customers take a dim view of it. Perhaps this played a role in today's announcement. You would hope that was the case. But that hope might be in vain.