As they escape the drought-blighted UK and try and relax on holiday, there is one nagging thought in the heads of senior City folks.
Inevitably, from their sun lounges, their minds turn to the months ahead, to the new term and what may come down the track. That brings them quickly to Andy Burnham and whatever the new Prime Minister is planning in his first budget, which is due on October 28. Whichever way they look, the omens are not promising.
When he sprinted to power, there was alarm in the business and investment community. On the basics alone, Mr Burnham seemed to be against them. He was "King of the North"; they were predominantly in the South, in and around London.
He was bound to favour his kin, a stance borne out by his public utterances, the people he chose around him and some of his early moves, such as creating "Number 10 North" in his favourite Manchester. That was bound to bring him into conflict with them – not least because every pound spent up there is a pound less down here.
These things matter and that was the instinctive reaction. Then there was his leftist ideology, again emphasised by his close circle. He came in, bustling and full of intentions, promising to bring change and hope, to revitalise and renew. Except, regardless of his talk, those policies cost.
The City knew this from the off. They were also aware this was someone who decried the UK being "in hock" to the bond markets, a phrase that displayed economic naivety and sent shivers down the spines of economic realists.
Mr Burnham may regret saying it – although he has never expressed as much – but the phrase stuck. Memories don’t have to be long where UK premiers and the unintended consequences of their actions are concerned. In a country that has had seven leaders in 10 years, one of them also showed a similar cavalier disregard. That was Liz Truss, and look what happened to her.
OK, they appreciated Mr Burnham was no Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves was not John Healey, his selection for chancellor. They got that – after all, it was why they are in post and Mr Starmer and former chancellor Rachel Reeves are not. Labour desired a shift, so Mr Burnham seized his opportunity.
He did not have the time they had to court the City, which they did assiduously in the run-up to the last election. They realised that as well.
Reassurance came in the form of those said to be influencing Mr Burnham. For a while it seemed as he would be appointing Lord Jim O’Neill, the former chief economist to Goldman Sachs, well regarded worldwide as inventor of the "Brics" acronym and a former minister, and Andy Haldane, the once head economist at the Bank of England. These were men the City held in high esteem. In the parlance of the bars and boardrooms, they were "grown-ups".
They had been involved with Mr Burnham during his successful reign as mayor of Greater Manchester. Both northerners, they espoused common sense, at least as the City saw it, and were able to push the case for private sector investment, of regional government and commerce working together to benefit all.
That was the foundation of "Manchesterism", the philosophy that transformed the north-west city, enabling it to enjoy the highest economic growth of anywhere in the UK. That was the accomplishment that propelled Mr Burnham to Downing Street – Labour MPs wished him to do the same, but on the national stage.
Now, though, comes the news that Mr O'Neill and Mr Haldane may not be fixtures by his side; that they will not be taking up official roles in his regime. With Mr O’Neill there is said to be the thorny issue of his considerable shares portfolio and how that can be managed if he occupies a ministerial job. With each of them, more profoundly, there is reported disquiet about the direction in which Mr Burnham is heading.
That has acted like a jolt to the City. One minute, they thought they had their duo in the room; next, the couple are claimed not to be here. It’s possible the two can steer from the sidelines but that is not ideal. It affords them no place in the hierarchy, no underpinning foundation. They can be too easily discounted by the Whitehall machine, in which initials and position in the pecking order are essential weapons.
Just as vexing is the nagging thought of what lies behind this, what is it that is causing them not to embrace the Burnham project and put their reputations squarely on the line? From the City’s perspective the view is it must be bad and that can only mean some form of increased taxation.
It may be a charge against banks; it could be further levies on business generally. The hope is that his experience in Manchester and what influence Mr O’Neill and Mr Haldane still possess, may see that one off. But it’s no longer so certain that they carry so much weight, a degree of certainty has given way to insecurity and that is troubling.
There is heightened talk that Mr Burnham and Mr Healey have decided businesses have suffered enough, that they will focus their fund-raising on people. It may be sold as a package of "we’re all in this together", saying such steps are required to boost defence and health and social care spending, thus by-passing Labour’s manifesto pledge not to raise taxes by calling it a dedicated, emergency levy.
In their crosshairs could be taxes (take your pick from income tax, national insurance and VAT). But their main fire will be directed in what is already being described as a "war on wealth", at pensions, capital gains and houses, or as they are hailed by those who justify the assault, "mansions", even though in many cases they do not resemble mansions, in the true meaning of the word.
The problem with this separation is they are not divisible. It may be convenient to park businesses but those in them, the bosses and shareholders, are in the firing line. The international message it will send is that the UK sees the wealthy, be they corporations (perhaps not directly on this occasion) and those who run and own them, as fair game. The government professes to want them, wishes them to invest but craves their cash for another reason.
As they gaze around, as they digest the stories and mood from home, those holidaying City chiefs can be forgiven for wondering if they should not remain, if they would be better off here rather than there.
