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 ?

McLaren_Field wrote: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. http://wire.kapitall.com/investment-ide ... ng-stats/# I think this says it all about "star performers".

McLaren_Field wrote: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. http://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.