From the archive: Super-prime mover: Britain's most successful estate agent
We are raiding the Guardian long read archives to bring you some classic pieces from years past, with new introductions from the authors.
This week, from 2022: Gary Hersham has been selling houses to the very rich for decades. At first, £1m was a big deal. Now he sells for £50m, £100m, even £200m. What does it take to stay on top in this cut-throat business?
By Sophie Elmhirst. Read by Andrew McGregor
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Thames Water must be held to account
So creditors wishing to take over Thames Water want the company and its senior management to be granted clemency from rules on sewage spills and environmental protection (Bidders demand Thames Water granted immunity over environmental crimes, 7 June). The rights of investors, it would seem, should prevail over the rights of communities to a clean environment. It is the failure of rigorously enforced regulation that led to the mismanagement of Thames Water, with loans being used to increase shareholder dividends and bloated bonuses for incompetent managers. In many countries the law can now be used to confiscate private assets gained from immoral activities, such as drug-running and prostitution. There is no reason why those who accrue wealth through the degradation of the natural environment should be treated any differently. Far from granting immunity from prosecution, the government should tighten the law to enable the criminal prosecution of the managers responsible and the repayment of shareholder dividends awarded by an underperforming business. Such a move would enable financial markets to promote good corporate governance and environmental sustainability. After all, financial investors and shareholders want profitable businesses that provide them with financial returns. If investors knew that they could lose their investment and dividends by investing in a company such as Thames Water, they would soon look to invest in more ethically run businesses. The government should now initiate legal proceedings to seize the assets of those managers who enriched themselves by creating a debt-laden, high-polluting water company. The proceeds should be invested in water infrastructure and environmental clean-ups. And Thames Water should be taken into public ownership and its assets auctioned off. Only socially responsible investors need HumphreysEmeritus professor of environmental policy, Open University Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Labour needs to make its priorities clear to everyone
Martin Kettle quotes a former Whitehall mandarin saying that 'the government has still not made clear what kind of Britain it is trying to create' (Rachel Reeves seized her moment – whatever the future brings, Labour's economic course is now set, 12 June). He has a point, not wholly answered by Rachel Reeves. It's the vision thing, and the ability to communicate it. It's about describing what Labour is for, in a general sense, beyond a list of policy deliverables. Growth is important, but only as a means, not an end. 'Securonomics' is interesting, but has no public resonance. If people are now unsure what Labour stands for, it is because the task of ideological self-definition has been neglected. This is unlike 1997, which was preceded by a process of rethinking that produced New Labour and the 'third way'. Something similar is needed now. There is a rich tradition of social democratic thinking in Britain to draw on, including RH Tawney's argument for equal access to what he called 'the means of civilisation' as the basis for a common culture. Pragmatism is valuable, but it is not enough. An argument should be constructed around the three pillars of security, opportunity and community that would pull together all that the government is trying to do, and the kind of Britain it wants to create. And in a way that people might WrightLabour MP, 1992-2010 I agree with Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah that the focus on investment alone will not work (Has Rachel Reeves made the right choices? Our panel responds to the spending review, 11 June). New public investments are pointless if the operation and maintenance of what already exists isn't adequately funded. After years of austerity, the quickest and surest way to raise GDP and improve public services is to ensure that we realise the full potential of what we already have. The highest priority should be to relieve the financial pressure on those delivering services, especially our severely cash-strapped local authorities. This will deliver more broad-based and higher economic growth quickly, in contrast to the central allocation of investment funds to mega-projects that will take decades to deliver results. Entrepreneurs want to live and invest in safe areas with good health and education, well maintained roads and pleasant amenities. Properly funded local authorities can encourage higher private investment by delivering that. Unfortunately, they are instead expected to implement an expensive and disruptive reorganisation and find the money to pay higher minimum wages and national insurance while receiving a settlement that implies a real-terms cut in funding. Labour needs to think FosterChelmsford According to Rachel Reeves, the NHS has been 'protected' and will receive 'a 3% rise in its budget' (Spending review 2025: who are the winners and losers?, 11 June). But will it in practice? In a recent meeting with the chief executive of the Nottingham University hospitals trust, he told us that he had been instructed to make £97m of cuts in this financial year. This would mean leading to the loss of about 750 jobs and the closure of some wards. Further, these massive cuts are the trust's contribution to the even bigger ones imposed on the integrated care board for our county: a £280m reduction in the provision for all local health services. So, which is it really, protection and a 3% rise, or enormous cuts?Mike ScottChair, Nottingham & Notts Keep Our NHS Public Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Ivy owner apologises for demanding discounts from suppliers
Richard Caring has apologised to suppliers of his restaurant businesses after a letter was sent out informing them there would be a 'mandatory' 2.5 per cent cut to their invoices. Caring's restaurant empire, which includes The Ivy Collection and Bills, wrote to suppliers earlier this month telling them that 'to ensure our business can remain strong' a 2.5 per cent 'discount' would be applied to their accounts. 'This mandatory discount is being applied in response to the current increased costs of trading,' the letter, dated June 3 and signed by Jeremy Evans, Richard Caring's head of indirect and beverage procurement, said. 'We are asking all of our supplier partners to work with us as we support each other through this difficult period.' After suppliers baulked at the unilateral demand for a discount, Caring told The Times that the letter had not been approved and apologised for it, adding that it was 'totally incorrect'. 'This letter should not have been written in the manner that it was. I had not seen it and certainly had not approved it. I want to apologise to our suppliers for the letter, which is totally incorrect,' Caring said. 'I want to make it clear that at no time would we put this into operation without the full agreement of each supplier and at no time should we have suggested a mandatory positioning.' It is understood that the idea of the cuts are not being reversed entirely, but the company will work with each of its suppliers to come to a decision. Nicholas Harmston, the chief executive and founder of We Can Source It, a catering supplier which received the letter, said he wrote back to tell them that he would increase his prices by 2.5 per cent and reduce the company's credit terms. 'I couldn't believe it. In 11 years of supplying [businesses], I've never seen a letter like that. It was unbelievable,' Harmston said. 'I've had no response [to my letter]. There was absolutely no way that was going to be accepted by my company, and I don't suppose many other suppliers will accept it either.' • Ivy braced to swallow £6m hit from national insurance rise At the time, the conglomerate justified the increase due to the 'many challenges regarding increased cost' that the restaurant sector is facing. 'The challenges facing us include, but are not limited to, an increased tax burden and cost of employment, cost of indirect products/services and also direct costs of food and beverages,' the letter went on to say. It ended by telling suppliers with concerns or queries to contact the business. 'I want to enlarge on the part of the letter that says if any supplier has any queries or concerns they should contact me,' Caring added. 'I would say we would like to work with each supplier in what is an extremely difficult marketplace so that we can successfully work together into the future hand in hand.' The apology comes as Caring is in advanced talks to sell a significant portion of his UK hospitality empire to an entity controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al-Nahyan. According to the Financial Times, the deal between Caring and Sheikh Tahnoon's holding company, IHC, could exceed £1 billion.
