“I think the more you have a disproportion between what people are earning and what they appear to be worth, the more we have astronomical sums with no clear rationale behind them, the less credibility the whole thing has.”

Those words were spoken by the regularly outspoken Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, on the BBC Radio 4s splendid Today program on April 25, and I agree warmly with him.

He had more to say in the same vein:

“There is a degree of envy and cynicism spread by disproportion and that leads people to feel even more alienated from the rest of society. The gulf is even greater between people who can’t manage their own affairs and take control of their own circumstances and those others. There may be an element of ‘I would like some of that’ but there is also an element of ‘What kind of society is this? How can I trust the system when it rewards some people so disproportionately in a way that doesn’t connect with where I am?’”

The archbishop thought that government ministers should be “a little more worried” about the high salaries of City high-flyers.

I cannot claim that he has opened up a new debate, because that debate has been under way for sometime with growing intensity. What he has done is to bring his moral authority and vast intelligence to bear, while being aware that it must be the leading politicians and political parties who must not only carry the debate forward, but also come up with some decent answers. Wealth can be a tricky subject. Most people would agree that having great wealth alongside great poverty is no way to run a decent democracy. Politicians of both the major parties in Britain have let the gap between rich and poor widen significantly in recent decades. But the massive sums paid to certain celebrities, such as pop stars and footballers, seem to cause amusement rather than resentment.

What has been causing great offense in Britain has been the salaries and weird bonuses paid to the City of London’s top people. London is now the business capital of Europe, and it is regarded as a key destination for investors from many parts of the globe, especially the Gulf States. This advance has taken place at the same time as the decline of heavy industry, mining and engineering throughout the land. In the Victorian era the big estates and great houses were passing into the hands of the big manufacturers. Today, they are passing into the hands of young city ‘gents’ — it is still largely a man’s world — who have worked hard and made their fortunes, frequently quickly, on the financial markets.

I have never forgotten a talk I had with a brain surgeon in a London hospital some years ago. Although he had impressive academic qualifications, special skills, and at least 12 years intense experience behind him, his salary in the National Health Service was well below £100,000. He was aghast at the fancy sums his contemporaries were getting in the City, and it was easy for him to feel the nation did not appreciate either his worth, or the life and death decisions that came to him to be made. Many well-trained professional people, carrying out essential work, feel the same today.

By chance The Sunday Times Rich List for 2008 in the United Kingdom is just out. It claims the number of billionaires has increased from 68 to 75 (helped, of course, by inflation). Forty of those had come to Britain from other countries. A new international “superclass” — many have come from Russia since the collapse of Communism there — has taken up residence. Only six of the top 20 names came from those born in the United Kingdom. As per last year, Lakshmi Mittal and Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea Football Club, top the list. The former’s family wealth has gone up by £8 billion to £27.7 billion in the past 12 months following the success of his world steel business. Since Labour came into power in 1997 the wealth of Britain’s richest 1,000 has risen by £53 billion, almost 15 percent in the past year.

Defenders of the big salaries and remunerations in the City like to explain to you they are in an international market, and if they do not look after the senior people they will drift away. In reality, there are many good reasons why such people want to live and work in Britain. If they go abroad they gain valuable experience and are likely to come back in time.

There is annoyance at the excessive rewards offered as well for good performance. It is pointed out there are many reasons for doing well, including promotion. Those who fail, frequently also end up with large bonuses.