I don't see the need to limit pay/bonuses etc, just put a tax on it.

If there is a sufficient tax on it then there is no problem. The private company has the right to pay whatever they want to their employee, if they want to pay a high bonus then lets cream a significant part of it off for the taxpayer.

Of course this might make them decide that they will go elsewhere and take their track record in loss making to damage the Swiss, US or some Far Eastern economy.

Love the way the Labour supporters are criticising Hester's performance at RBS during a time of massive economic uncertainy in the Eurozone but won't hear a bad word spoken about Brown's performance as Chancellor because 'it woz a global crisis'.

In essence. It's ok to use external factors as an excuse when it suits.

I think a lot of Labour supporters would have concerns over Gordon Brown being paid a £1 million bonus by the taxpayer.

But yes you are right both sides use external factors as an excuse when it suits. The Conservative Party policy in their 2007 conference was to commit to matching Labour's public spending figures for the next three years. Then when there was a global recession and the deficit shot up, they complained about Labour's massive borrowing. Now George Osborne's borrowing plans for the rest of the parliament are HIGHER than Alastair Darling's plans were at the time of the election, when Osborne said that it was reckless borrowing that would destroy the economy.

The Tories are now using exactly the same argument "this is a GLOBAL crisis and we are facing UNPARALLELED uncertainty" that Labour did, but it smacks of hypocrisy from them as they were the ones that whilst in opposition used the argument "it happened on Labour's watch so is Labour's fault".

To be honest though exactly the same happened the other way around in the early 1990s over the pound falling out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Neil Kinnock had been calling for the UK to join the ERM for years, Britain finally joined in 1989 and Labour claimed this as a victory that the Tories had finally seen sense, and both parties fought the 1992 election on a platform of committing the UK's economic policy around being in that semi pegged exchange rate system. But when in September 1992, the pound fell out of it, the ERM disaster got painted by Labour for the rest of John Major's parliament as "proof of the Tories' economic incompetence"....

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Those using the argument that "RBS share price went down today.....so it must be because Hester turned down his bonus" don't understand that markets are driven by many factors. Look at the market data for the banking sector today: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/mark ... efault.stm At the time I make this post, the share price changes are: -4.17% Barclays -4.13% Lloyds -3.53% RBS -2.83% Standard Chartered -2.51% HSBC So todays share prices have been on a downward direction for the major banks and RBS has not lost as much as Barclays or Lloyds. So how can you make the claim that the RBS share price fell today in response to Hester turning down his bonus....'" The political risk theory still holds though - of the other four, Barclays and Lloyds are the two which are most likely to be affected by political risk as they are much more UK / London centric than either SC or HSBC, which whilst having their HQ in London are both more or less Asian banks. RBS are down 37% yoy but then Lloyds are down 50%, Barclays 28%, HSBC 23%. Lloyds are the closest competitor from the perspective of being state owned and so RBS have out performed them, and given the relative difference in strength arguably Barclays as well. Of course this all assumes that share price is the only metric worth following - which it isn't - and the real concern here is that we now have politicians holding what I'd consider to be an unacceptable level of influence over a £1.608bn balance sheet which we all have a stake in. What's even worse is it seems to be Labour which have the most power, a party who won't be coming to power any time soon and who don't seem to have any credible ideas beyond saying the opposite of whatever it is the Government says. May as well let the BNP have a crack as well. There can be no positive outcome out of this for RBS no matter how you look at it, and all it does is reduce the chance of us seeing our money back. But hey, as long as a bunch of northern socialists have satisfied themselves that one person isn't getting his bonus, who needs £45bn?

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Those using the argument that "RBS share price went down today.....so it must be because Hester turned down his bonus" don't understand that markets are driven by many factors. Look at the market data for the banking sector today: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/mark ... efault.stm At the time I make this post, the share price changes are: -4.17% Barclays -4.13% Lloyds -3.53% RBS -2.83% Standard Chartered -2.51% HSBC So todays share prices have been on a downward direction for the major banks and RBS has not lost as much as Barclays or Lloyds. So how can you make the claim that the RBS share price fell today in response to Hester turning down his bonus....'" The political risk theory still holds though - of the other four, Barclays and Lloyds are the two which are most likely to be affected by political risk as they are much more UK / London centric than either SC or HSBC, which whilst having their HQ in London are both more or less Asian banks. RBS are down 37% yoy but then Lloyds are down 50%, Barclays 28%, HSBC 23%. Lloyds are the closest competitor from the perspective of being state owned and so RBS have out performed them, and given the relative difference in strength arguably Barclays as well. Of course this all assumes that share price is the only metric worth following - which it isn't - and the real concern here is that we now have politicians holding what I'd consider to be an unacceptable level of influence over a £1.608bn balance sheet which we all have a stake in. What's even worse is it seems to be Labour which have the most power, a party who won't be coming to power any time soon and who don't seem to have any credible ideas beyond saying the opposite of whatever it is the Government says. May as well let the BNP have a crack as well. There can be no positive outcome out of this for RBS no matter how you look at it, and all it does is reduce the chance of us seeing our money back. But hey, as long as a bunch of northern socialists have satisfied themselves that one person isn't getting his bonus, who needs £45bn?

When you and your gambling chums have finally paid back what it cost, not just UK taxpayers but all taxpayers in the western world, to cover your reckless bets, feel free to come back and have a moan. Until that payday you'll find very little sympathy anywhere, apart from in your cosy little microcosm

Which reckless bets were those then?

Pass the parcel with derivatives for starters

Who on here owns shares in RBS?

RBSs principal problem was a very poor acquisition.

Across the sctor as a whole, the problem has been with poor traditional lending / credit control, not investment banking.

It's just that if you've got money spare. Rather than going down the bookies, RBS sounds like a good investment.

As long as it's a long term one.

Quote ="Diavolo Rosso" But hey, as long as a bunch of northern socialists have satisfied themselves that one person isn't getting his bonus, who needs £45bn?'" I think you have misunderstood the debate over Hester's bonus. No offence to anyone here but nobody in the City cares what northern socialists think, if they had their way we would all be working in the coal mines singing the red flag instead of having the most vibrant financial services sector in the world. Hester has turned down his bonus under pressure and censure from educated people that understand politics and economics not leftists Have a read of this from a sensible educated newspaper not some leftist liberal rag: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ia ... -executive’s-bonus-decision-should-be-followed-by-most-ftse-100-directors/

Quote ="Diavolo Rosso" But hey, as long as a bunch of northern socialists have satisfied themselves that one person isn't getting his bonus, who needs £45bn?'" I think you have misunderstood the debate over Hester's bonus. No offence to anyone here but nobody in the City cares what northern socialists think, if they had their way we would all be working in the coal mines singing the red flag instead of having the most vibrant financial services sector in the world. Hester has turned down his bonus under pressure and censure from educated people that understand politics and economics not leftists Have a read of this from a sensible educated newspaper not some leftist liberal rag: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ia ... -executive’s-bonus-decision-should-be-followed-by-most-ftse-100-directors/

All British banks are good long term investments at the moment. The bankers, despite the last few years are too clever to let politicians mess things up for too long. I'd say pile in and sit back.

Quote ="Ovavoo"All British banks are good long term investments at the moment. The bankers, despite the last few years are too clever to let politicians mess things up for too long. I'd say pile in and sit back.'" The top 4 aussie banks pay around 6.4 - 7.4% p.a. in divs. Which is much more than you'll get from them in any of their savings accounts. The financial sector on the ASX pays an average of 7.4% at the mo. If your savings are doing nothing back home, have a butchers around. There's nothing I'm aware of that's stopping you from buying international shares on t'internet. The only downer is the exposure to exchange rates from blighty. ANZ for example: www.shareholder.anz.com/phoenix. ... -dividends ----- I think that if a company can pay large bonuses to its directors, and non-executive directors as well as some staff, they should channel that money back into the people that OWN the bank, ie. the shareholders. Even if it's a token gesture. The money's there, but it's going to the people the shareholders employ in effect and not the owners themselves. Even the Bank of America gave a measly 1¢ per shares dividend to its holders. Current price being $7.07 so that's something like a 0.0014% return. But I bet some would have appreciated it. I can see the UK Government making loads of money out of this bail out in the future when things recover in the world financially and they sell back the bank, bit by bit, back to the banking group itself. What that government will do with that money is anyone's guess though. Anyway, financial waffle over.

Quote ="Ovavoo"All British banks are good long term investments at the moment. The bankers, despite the last few years are too clever to let politicians mess things up for too long. I'd say pile in and sit back.'" The top 4 aussie banks pay around 6.4 - 7.4% p.a. in divs. Which is much more than you'll get from them in any of their savings accounts. The financial sector on the ASX pays an average of 7.4% at the mo. If your savings are doing nothing back home, have a butchers around. There's nothing I'm aware of that's stopping you from buying international shares on t'internet. The only downer is the exposure to exchange rates from blighty. ANZ for example: www.shareholder.anz.com/phoenix. ... -dividends ----- I think that if a company can pay large bonuses to its directors, and non-executive directors as well as some staff, they should channel that money back into the people that OWN the bank, ie. the shareholders. Even if it's a token gesture. The money's there, but it's going to the people the shareholders employ in effect and not the owners themselves. Even the Bank of America gave a measly 1¢ per shares dividend to its holders. Current price being $7.07 so that's something like a 0.0014% return. But I bet some would have appreciated it. I can see the UK Government making loads of money out of this bail out in the future when things recover in the world financially and they sell back the bank, bit by bit, back to the banking group itself. What that government will do with that money is anyone's guess though. Anyway, financial waffle over.

Whilst I was working away a few weeks ago I caught a bit of Hannity's show on Fox. It's mostly a patchwork of lies, misdirection and vitriol but occasionally the odd truth nips through like a stealth bomb. Hannity's worker bee asks[i "I don't get Obama. He lambasts greedy bankers and yet they are his political benefactors without whom he'd be nothing. Doesn't he realise he's alienating his power base?"[/i The financial analyst replies - [i"He bangs the drum and then winks at Wall Street - 'Sorry guys, you know I have to be SEEN doing this or else we'll all suffer. But once the election is in the bag it's back to business as usual"[/i. Substitute Cameron for Obama and you've got the same story.

But let's be honest, arguing over who deserves how much and for what is a bit of a red-herring. The problem is the system itself as it currently stands. It is simply not sustainable.

In America something like 5% of the world's population consumes 23%+ of the world's resources - many of which are finite. This is not an economic model that can be exported to China or South America or India without catastrophic consequences. No amount of spin from politicians, bankers, the plethora of right wing think tanks funded by big business etc. can sweep this issue under the carpet for very long before it slips back out to bite us on the ankles.

I'm not saying the sky will fall in overnight. Indeed, we may see one or two upturns in the local and global economy over the next few years. But the trend will be downward. People living in the relative luxury of the US and America - where the media is inextricably connected to the social, political and economic system and fights hard to maintain it - may not initially notice any serious issues (although soaring fuel prices are hurting just about everyone) but you can bet the millions of people scratching out a meagre existence at the extremities each day will (and are).

I'm sure there are some at the top who either know or strongly suspect the game as they understand it will shortly be up and are mobilising all their assets in an attempt to pressurise politicians into giving them enough of a free ride to squeeze every last drop out of the ailing economy. Then there are the others who genuinely feel everything will go back to normal once this seemingly interminable stagnation evaporates and they'll be stacking banknotes to the roof.

I could be wrong. Indeed, I [ihope [/iI'm wrong. But unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat (sharpish) I doubt it. Maybe in ten or twenty years we'll be looking back at 2012 thinking those were the [igood old days[/i.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-we-are-in-a-new-era-but-bankers-havent-noticed-6297278.htmlSteve Richards's take on the subject[/url

I must say, there's little I disagree with

He has a good comparison there.
Thatcher smashed the miners because she thought they were too powerful.
Who will bring the bankers to heel?

There is no one man who can do to the banks what Thatcher did to the miners. Notions of the nation state, flag waving patriotism and self-determination are now hopelessly quaint. We now have a global government - and it isn't the UN. These people operate almost completely outside of any national jurisdiction (with the possible exception of the US), wield enormous power and are completely opposed to the principles of democracy. If they have their way we'll be living under fascist rule - the perfect wedding of the interests of the state and the interests of the capitalist class - where the unions are smashed, regulations (H&S, human rights, environmental law, the minimum wage etc.) are obliterated and the media is compliant.

"[iNotions of the nation state, flag waving patriotism and self-determination are now hopelessly quaint[/i."
I agree, up to a point.
The points you make are all further reasons why I am in favour of a Federal Europe. (yes, I'm banging that drum again)
Only by nation states banding together can Global business be kept on a leash.

I agree but that would also depend on how deeply entrenched global business was, in the powerhouses of individual states. We already have two member states effectively being run by unelected, ex-Goldman Sachs technocrats. Who knows how deeply their influence runs in the others?

It would not take many to agree to bring about change: the EU, UK (if we insist on not being part of the EU), US, China and Australia. Possibly include Russia just so it don't feel left out

Except for UK and Australia, the rest of your list have enough individual clout on their own, if they wanted to use it.
There can't be many global companies who would relish the idea of losing, say, the EU or the US as an area into which to sell.
They would have to toe the line stated by that entity (e.g. virtually the whole of the Western world adopted the standards that the US rushed through after the Enron/Anderson scandal).

Well the bankers ensuring their remuneration stays high, and the share price recovering are two different things.

It's an idea - but I can't help feeling it is a solution we should have turned to 10-20 years ago (the time when Thatcher, Clinton, Major, Bush Snr. etc were busy make it easy for businesses to organise transnationally - not to mention signing away rights that were hard won in the first place) . Big business, the "corporatocracy" - call it what you will - has since loaded the game to such an extent that it can now summon and bring to bear a vast array of political, economic and social weapons that make it almost impossible to resist.

Capital flight is one obvious method of blackmail and it is arguably the most potent (certainly against poorer nations such as those in Africa). Britain decides to, say, introduce a Tobin Tax and take a slice out of individual transactions and suddenly the FT is awash with rumours about large sums of money being withdrawn from the country.

I agree that organisation is the key. But even around the turn of the century when your average worker was far more engaged with labour rights it still wasn't easy for the first guy to say no when the police and hired thugs were waving blackjacks and pistols under your nose.

Yes but Russia had this problem with the oligarchs and Putin dealt with them.

In Yelstin's time the oligarchs had got rich off the fall of the Soviet Union and used their wealth and influence to dictate government policy, and evaded taxes at will. In Putin's early days he tried to pass a bill raising taxes to close Russia's budget deficit and the oil bosses bought off enough MPs to block his bill going through the Duma. Unfortunately for them Putin's background is in the KGB and he knew the oligarchs were bent as anything and just got the security services on the case to gather evidence to put before the state prosecutor and bang the ones he didn't want were in jail.

I would not give up on the power of the state just yet, it needs someone strong enough to enforce it and use the intelligence and security services to take on the bankers. Mrs Thatcher used them against the miners.

The bankers are now the enemy within. If I was the PM every big fish banker would have it made clear to them that the security services were going through every bit of their life and their past and if they ever do, or have ever done, one small thing that contravened the law or evaded 1p of tax, the full force of the law will come down on them. If they ever do anything that would be of interest to the tabloid press, the tabloids will hear about it from the intelligence services.

The Russian oligarchs form only a small subset of a far more powerful, influential and potentially dangerous group of trans-national corporate interests (many of whom are responsible for cycling half the US GDP through global markets daily) that has become remarkably adept at neutering socially conscious governments, politically aware electorates as well as legislation that in any way attempts to restrict the torrent of money flooding into collective coffers. It's a complex, dynamic and often uneasy alliance of disparate entities, divided loyalties and conflicting interests sharing a mutual and overriding precept that the only people that can be trusted less than themselves are the people. Self-determination is bad for business.

I give credit to Putin for taking down Berezovsky, Malkin, Khodorkovsky and the rest of the robber barons. But there's just no comparison with the task we are currently facing. Real power doesn't need to break the law to make money because it [iwrites the law[/i. I mean, spend some time looking into the mechanics of the WTO, "investor rights" and "national treatment" if you want to understand how power games the system in its favour.

If you're right, it looks like Rollerball the film was a prophecy.