Are you serious?

Are you seriously trying to argue that the measures that the coalition are forced to take now are not the result of the chronic economic mismanagement of the previous administration?

There is a really simple survey that any reporter worth his salt could do in an afternoon ring-around - "How many of your star performers, the ones who would clear off to another country if they didn't get their bonus, how many of these people are British and ho many were sourced from overseas ?"


If as I suspect the vast majority of them are British then the theory that British banks only employ the worlds top sharp-shooters who are all mavericks and will move on to anywhere else if they don't get what they want, is bollox.

Sir Fred Goodwin hasn't exactly run off to another foreign based market to maintain his multi-million stipend has he and yet he probably used that as justification for his multi-million stipend.

That well known independent institution the BBC. Or "Buggers Broadcasting Communism" as it is known............................ What next? Citing Mein Kampf as evidence for social policy?




In terms of the bonus, I have to say I am not privy to the T&C's of his contract etc However, IF he has "turned the bank around" and saved the taxpayer say £50m and IF the terms were he would get 2% of it then good luck to him. That's a net £49m for the treasury (i.e. you and I), job done.

However, I agree that the banks should be split into two.

1- Retail banks - backed by the governement (i.e. you and I) - there to provide a place for savings/mortgages etc

2. Investment banks - backed by no-one - there to do whatever they like


The real issue I have over the bail out of the banks is that the employees of the banks were in a zero lose situation. Play around with money, if they "win" they generate massive profits and reap the associated bonuses. If they lose, well the country cannot afford to let them go bust as it's the "man on the street" who would suffer. There was no effective risk and reward.

Split them into two, guarantee #1, (this will inevitably lead to more modest profits/salaries etc)

If #2 goes bust, then it's their call. No state bail out. Equally good luck to them, pay as much money to their staff as they like. There is no reason for public outcry.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the previous administration were solely responsible for the crash in the world markets, the euro-crisis, etc, etc ?

Quote ="McLaren_Field"There is a really simple survey that any reporter worth his salt could do in an afternoon ring-around - "How many of your star performers, the ones who would clear off to another country if they didn't get their bonus, how many of these people are British and ho many were sourced from overseas ?" If as I suspect the vast majority of them are British then the theory that British banks only employ the worlds top sharp-shooters who are all mavericks and will move on to anywhere else if they don't get what they want, is bollox. Sir Fred Goodwin hasn't exactly run off to another foreign based market to maintain his multi-million stipend has he and yet he probably used that as justification for his multi-million stipend.'" wire.kapitall.com/investment-ide ... ng-stats/# I think this says it all about "star performers".

Quote ="McLaren_Field"There is a really simple survey that any reporter worth his salt could do in an afternoon ring-around - "How many of your star performers, the ones who would clear off to another country if they didn't get their bonus, how many of these people are British and ho many were sourced from overseas ?" If as I suspect the vast majority of them are British then the theory that British banks only employ the worlds top sharp-shooters who are all mavericks and will move on to anywhere else if they don't get what they want, is bollox. Sir Fred Goodwin hasn't exactly run off to another foreign based market to maintain his multi-million stipend has he and yet he probably used that as justification for his multi-million stipend.'" wire.kapitall.com/investment-ide ... ng-stats/# I think this says it all about "star performers".

That's patently not the case - as a very high proportion of FTSE 100 company directors are British, despite them being global company's in most cases. Now if we look at other competitive sphere - eg football, rugby, just about anything where more than 3 countries are involved are British the best? Answer = no. It therefore follows they do not need to be paid so much if they're British. Also would the individuals really go abroad - would they be capable of commanding a higher / as hihjly paid directorship elsewhere? I think not.

The situation is somewhat different in investment banking though as the individuals with the requisite experience (no particular skills - just intelligent and trained in their jobs) are mobile. Mind you, there's only a few places that they'd be willing to live in and if the financial institutions based in those places reached consensus there'd be no need for bonuses. In fact, as the big payers are likely to be the same company's in each place it would be a simple matter to agree.

Of course not.

However, they were guilty of thinking that the "good times" would last forever, and not putting money aside for a rainy day.

Spending millions creating factitious public sector jobs "Executive of gay/lesbian equality in the workplace. £40k p.a. anyone?"

Thanks for the evidence



I didn't really need it though, all I had to do was look at my pension funds over the past five years to realise that someone, somewhere, hasn't a clue what to do other than claw back their fees every year.

Got any more urban myths to peddle ?

Only by particularly twerpish imbeciles.

How much of the North Sea oil revenues that were coming in from 1979 to 1997 under the Tories, was put aside for a 'rainy day'? We didn't end up with much to show for them....by the time the Tories were voted out we were still running deficits every year and had crap public services.

It is pretty shameful that in 17 years in office the Tories only balanced the books for two years, the other fifteen they ran deficits every year despite the revenues coming in from the North Sea oil.

Also wasn't Britain 'transformed' back then or something, thanks to Thatcher getting the unions off businesses backs, and deregulating the financial services industry (and we didn't have minimum wage or immigration under the Tories) so surely during this boom time we could have been running large surpluses for the rainy day that would inevitably come when Labour would come in and ruin the country.

That's a simple fix too: just include "sub-contracted by" alongside "employed by".

It already works with those companies that have signed up to the London Living Wage

Well done on tossing away any tiny shred of credibility you had remaining after repeatedly having your backside handed to you on this and other threads.

On a basic £1.2m salary, you could get 5 good people on £200k and send £200k back to the exchequer. Are there really not 5 people who could do what Hester does, as a group?

So that is your only comment on the reports that the government caved in to threats of resignation or the possibility of resignation?

If there is no truth in it Peston who is hardly what you might call left wing and the BBC are going to get sued out of existence.



RBS just canned an IT project that cost £200m. They are starting again.

Their share price is also down to around 28p so he has not added any value to the company which is what we as taxpayers need to get our cash back not some imaginary £50m you have dreamt up for the sake of your argument.

The main problem we have at the moment with the banks is despite most of them being bailed out none of the ones banks including RBS are lending as the government would like them to. And he gets a bonus for that!

So why, given the above did the government not veto the bonus? They can do so and Hester knows that is the deal so there is no question of broken contracts here. It appears they didn't because of threats or perceived threats to resign.



So you do not think the bonus chasing culture had anything at al to do with the banking crisis? We have had banks go bust because of the bonus culture. Remember Nick Leason? There was very recently some French bloke who lost his bank a fortune. Huge bonuses encourage risk taking and also encourage people to make deals that are in their interest so they get the bonus and often go against the interests of the wider population due to thinks like currency speculation and other dubious ways to make money.

There is no problem with paying a CEO of any company a high wage. However there is no need to add to Hester's £1.2m salary to the tune of over £900K.

It is also true that banking CEO's get a far higher remuneration than say the boss of engineering firm and the main reason they do is this merry go round of bonuses given by remuneration committees who site fear of them leaving if they don't. It is complete and utter rubbish.

If there were the government would not be paying £1m to him in salary. Compared to other MD's of similar sized banks his pay is pretty small.

There is not a huge queue of potential candidates of suitable quality prepared to do that job for half the market rate - that is not the case.

Woah. At the risk of turning this into a Thatcher thread. Are you old enough to remember the 3 day weeks, the rubbish piling high in the streets, the powercuts, the "putting your name down" for a telephone?

This was the UK pre Thatcher.

The problem is the high flyers are the hedge fund managers and private equity directors i.e. the risk takers. Most British pension funds don't want to invest in either of these two areas as the consider it too risky. Given the relatively low level of risk your pension fund will use it is no surprise that the returns are pityfully. You don't have to be genius to buy government stock!!

They should be allowed to engage in their business like anyone else. They should not be given a guarantee by the governement (i.e. Taxpayers)

Oh here we go again with you spouting your DM propaganda rubbish. Thing is I'm disabled and my husband is a public sector worker so at least WE know what you've posted this week about the disabled and now the public sector is just plain rubbish and quite frankly laughable.

Backside handed to me? haha

You must be joking.

The day I get my backside handed to me by a bunch of left wing misfits on a notice board, is the day I resign from the "proper" debating forums.


I would say unbelievable comment but it's entirely believable.

BTW DaveO, I was speaking hypothetically about the bonus re RBS as I said I don't know enough of the detail of this particular instance, hence your facts and figures were irrelevant to the point that you were making.

.edit. I won't be drawn to your level.

hahaha your circumstances explain a lot.

Chip on shoulder? Enormous.

No but I'm old enough to remember the Brixton and Toxteth riots, the miners strike, the Poll tax, unemployment at the highest it has been since the war, welfare spending at an all time high level.

I'm old enough to remember Thatcher leaving office with us in recession, inflation at 10% and the pound having been signed away into the Exchange Rate Mechanism so our interest rates were dictated by Germany.

Personally I want a Prime Minister that tackles inflation, doesn't sign the pound away to Europe, curbs welfare spending, gets on top of social disorder and doesn't have the country paralysed by strikes.

You're getting your ar$e whopped on here and you know it.