[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-is-caught-misleading-voters-over-bonuses-6294100.htmlErrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmm no they didn't[/url

Cameron and his lap-dog have been eager to blame the last administration for awarding contracts to RBS executives that prevented the major shareholder, us, from having any say in the bonus awards to Philip Hester and his mates. The only problem with that appears to be that there's nothing in the contracts that prevents the biggest shareholder from having a say in the matter.

[iIn the section on bonuses, the contract states: "The executive [Mr Hester may, at the discretion of the Remuneration Committee, be entitled to participate in any Bonus Scheme as approved by the Remuneration Committee, the terms of which may, at the sole discretion of the Remuneration Committee, require the Executive to defer a proportion of any bonus awarded to him."

Sources at RBS confirmed that the Remuneration Committee's recommendations had to be put to a full vote of shareholders at the annual general meeting, which the Government controls.

Although that vote is advisory, the source confirmed it would be "inconceivable" that the Government's wishes would not be followed. The contract and RBS's position would appear to be at odds with comments by Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg on the issue.[/i

So, it's all round to Phil's for cocktails then eh?

If Miliband does not tear Cameron a new ar[is[/iehole at today's PMQs, he should resign in shame.

Sadly, he'll probably come off second best again. I desperately want the Labour party to get its act together, but they're an absolute shambles at the moment. From Milliband failing miserably as a leader, to my own MP (Caroline Flint) not even bothering to respond to an email I sent her nearly a month ago, they've nothing to recommend them to voters - even the ones desperate to vote for them. If there was an election tomorrow, I'd have to vote Green.

Ed's finished. Even his shadow front bench were openlt criticising him over the Welfare Bill fiasco.

The Tories are steaming agead in the polls.

Labour has no coherency. It's finished for years without a new leader and a big dose of common sense.

Who should suceed him, is his brother upto it? I quite like Ed Balls, I think he would give Cameron et al a run for their money.

The fact that they are trying to blame Labour tells us that they are not keen on curbing bonuses at all and therefore all the hot air and bluster from Cameron about overpay is shallow and empty ... but they know it won't be popular, so they have decided to just add another lie to the long list of lies they have run up in a very short time.

Quote ="cod'ead"[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-is-caught-misleading-voters-over-bonuses-6294100.htmlErrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmm no they didn't[/url buggers'" is the remuneration committee made up of non-executive directors. The very sort I was whinging about on here a few weeks ago. Who get their jobs form the directors that they then vote to get bonuses on? www.rbs.com/about-rbs/g1/our-board.ashx Oh yes it is. Found them. Four of these lovely people with Penny Hughes CBE as the Chair.

Quote ="cod'ead"[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-is-caught-misleading-voters-over-bonuses-6294100.htmlErrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmm no they didn't[/url buggers'" is the remuneration committee made up of non-executive directors. The very sort I was whinging about on here a few weeks ago. Who get their jobs form the directors that they then vote to get bonuses on? www.rbs.com/about-rbs/g1/our-board.ashx Oh yes it is. Found them. Four of these lovely people with Penny Hughes CBE as the Chair.

The problem with Ed Balls is he is tainted goods.

Within the confines of the Commons, Balls is probably regarded as a troublesome opponent by Tories because he is an aggressive arguer, he is relentless and pins ministers down on issues, and he has a good background in economics so he picks people up when they try to make unfounded claims.

However with the wider public Balls is seen rightly or wrongly as Gordon Brown's lapdog, a symbol of the worst of the factionalism which drove the Labour party to eat itself during the Blair v Brown years. Balls has also made a lot of enemies within the Labour party. So the Tories response to Balls is usually not to counter his arguments, which are usually quite strong, but to mock his image or lack of popularity.

Like Ed Miliband, Balls is not Prime Minister material. Ed Miliband because he comes over as a bit of a drip, Balls because he comes over as someone a bit unlikeable and an ambitious plotter.

David Miliband would be streets ahead of both of them. As for the other candidates there are not many at the moment. Yvette Cooper would be a strong leader but I'm not sure how Ed would feel about playing second fiddle to her. He may recognise that his own chances are negligible and second best is to get his wife to do the job. But then it all makes the Labour party seem very much a family affair, the Miliband brothers and Mr and Mrs Balls. A lot of commentators are tipping Chuka Ummuna or Rachel Reeves to be future leaders but as MPs from the 2010 intake I think it would be at least 2017 before either of them could be leader so I think there will be a leader before them.

The outside bet would be Alastair Darling, he is out of the scene at the moment but said he wouldn't rule out making a return to the front bench in time, and I think he is doing what David Miliband is doing, recognising that the Labour party is in a mess at the moment and disassociating himself so he can be relatively untainted when he comes back. Although Darling might not seem like a dynamic Blair or Cameron figure, he has the benefit of being fairly normal and considering he was Chancellor through a difficult time he accredited himself quite well and was received well by the public. I know people will use the 'boring' tag against him but I don't think boring is a bad image when voters are suspicious of spin and bull...Darling was the one that Brown tried to censor from telling things like they were when the financial crisis started.

The problem Labour have is not just Balls but that they have no balls.

Their only hope is be brave and radical in their thinking. Nuanced differences to the present government are pointless. The idea that Labour support cuts but then moan about every one is a ridiculous and two-faced position and potential voters see that. They are not gaining votes or even limiting damage by such a stance. The idea that you can make big cuts without causing pain or upsetting some / all people is simply daft. The government are at least being coherent - they see cuts as necessay and are going about the job. As they "promised" they are setting about changing Britain forever. Whether or not that will prove a good thing or not, time will tell.

And he duly did. He should have one of the easiest jobs in decades as opposition leader in a time of hardship and financial crisis but he repeatedly fails to take advantage. Worst leader since Foot IMO.


Must admit I'd be in a similar position. Which would really test my resolve as far as always taking part in elections goes.

Isn't the problem here that our elections have become presidential rather than party politically based?

Cameron is popular because he has great PR and is even to tell outright lies and go up in the polls. Meanwhile the actual job of government is being done by the likes of Willets, Gove and Lansey who are making a right ideologically driven mess of it. We even have unsavoury characters like Eric Pickles in positions of power.

I think the likes of Cooper, Burnham and Balls would do a far better job but people seem unable see past the weakness of Ed Milliband.

I remember years ago being astonished my brother in law and his wife were going to vote Tory because they considered John Major a strong leader. My response was but what about all the policies his government will implement that will make you and the country worse off in numerous ways (which is what happened with people left on trolley's in hospital wards etc and a botched privatisation of the railways he himself has admitted was rushed through etc)?

It seems history is repeating itself and people will either not vote Labour or even vote Tory ignoring what doing so will actually mean. A outright majority government made up of some of the most right wing neo-con politicians we have ever had the misfortune to have around.

Labout ought to be able to put up a stuffed pig as leader and still wipe the floor at an election given the mess this government is making but instead it seems that they have to have a poster boy with a background in PR.

Preferably one who is 'good looking enough to be PM', as a poll commissioned by the [iSunday Times[/i the other weekend put it.

I don't think it's [ijust[/i Milliband's weakness, no one in the Labour Party is winning too many arguments at the moment. I do think it's up to Milliband to inspire the rest of his party though, and he has failed to do that so far.

There has been a plethora of opportunities for Labour (and Milliband) to point out the government's shortcomings in a number of areas, but they fail to seize these opportunities with alarming consistency. Sadly, you're right that politics is becoming increasingly about image, but Labour should be using that to their advantage. It should be very easy for an opposition leader to paint the Tories as a bunch of self-serving b[ia[/istards who don't give a rat's ass about the majority of the electorate, so how come he's making such a spectacularly poor job of it? Say what you like about Gordon Brown, but he had spades more gravitas that this sorry lot.

I think the big problem is that they don't actually know what they'd do. They're still wedded, in so many ways, to the neo-liberal model, and they're also still in love with big business. They don't want to be seen as old-fashioned socialists, so they're largely - or seem to be - waiting for someone to come up with an alternative economic approach. I can see that being the Greens, to be honest, since the at least seem prepared to ask big questions about why, for instance, we need perpetual growth.

Just having a quick look on their website and they do seem to be ticking all the right boxes, for me at least. I do know that they spoke out against ESA/DLA reforms. They want minimum wage to be "60% of net national average earnings (currently this would mean a minimum wage of £8.10 per hour)." and they are against the privatisation schemes of the NHS which this government are persuing. Hmmm might be worth a serious consideration?

Let's hope he resigns in shame as his performance yet again was pathetic.

I find your stance on growth odd. You have often railed againt "perpetual growth" but you moan because you perceive Tory policy to be anti-"growth." I think you have the same problem as Labour.

It is sad that in modern society men are judged by their looks and made to feel they have to be "sexy" to be valued.

Well Cameron in his early days in charge was going on a lot about the "green agenda", changing the Conservative party logo from the iconic blue torch of freedom to some scribbled green tree to symbolise "nature" and that crap.

Now he is in power he has embraced the tree-huggers' "zero growth economy" and told us that it's not about GDP its about happiness.

This may be the way to market austerity, get us all to sit round smoking pot saying we haven't got any material possessions any more but we've got love and peace and hare krishna.

Now that's a party I would support, where do I sign?

The economy is currently geared up to the demands of the City etc that we need constant growth – see Tesco getting a slap on the wrist last year for not having grown 'enough', according to the City. And it 'punished' the company accordingly, with its share price suffering. So to please the City, Tesco has to go out and open more and more stores. It doesn't matter that it makes vast profits – that's not enough. The City wants more. So what happens when all the little independent traders have been driven out of business altogether; when only the big four supermarkets remain? Where does the growth come from then? Abroad? There's finite possibilities there too – and more competitors. Eventually, further growth will be impossible.

And in the meantime, of course, meaningful consumer choice has been further reduced and, given what we know of the way businesses behave, more producers will have gone to the wall or off-shored jobs as they search to cut as much off costs as possible in order to undercut the opposition.

The UK's economy in general is shrinking – hence we're on the cusp of a double dip (some would say we're already in it), with businesses failing and people being made jobless (to be blasted as feckless scroungers etc by the likes of the [iDaily Mail[/i and its imbecilic readership). We obviously need to grow it if we are to create jobs etc and, therefore, get rid of the deficit.

But why do we need perpetual growth, which cannot be sustainable and is, as illustrated above briefly, bad for the economy as a whole?

Isn't it brilliant. They brought this country to its knees, they should face the consequences for years to come.

Ey up, has No 1 village idiot let the apprentice have a turn on his computer?

How far ahead is Cameron in the polls, I've said it before, I'll say it again.

You are losing, we are winning.

Chin up.

.....If leading the country into another recession is your idea of winning, then I await your idea of losing with some interest.

At least Labour had a ready made excuse for the last recession with the banking collapse, the present lot have just led us there through gross incompetence....

The present lot have had to play the poor hand they were given. Heaven knows how worse it would have been with the jokers in office still.