Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Vince Cable

12 replies

newwave · 19/09/2011 17:09

Wants to stop excessive bankers bonuses and rewards for faliure.

Correct me if I am wrong but did not Cameron say before the last election "no person in a bailed out bank will receive a bonus in excess of £2.5K".

He wasnt lying (again) was he.

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 19/09/2011 17:50

Ok, since you asked.

It was Clegg & his band of merry men who proposed the £2.5k bonus cap.

Link

Cameron as far as I remember never specified a limit and merely said he wanted banks to reduce their bonuses but that he wouldn't micromanage them.

Labour? Well they were the muppets who didn't attach conditions for bonuses to the bailout money we pumped in.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 19/09/2011 17:58

So that would be a 'no', Cameron isn't lying. Just checking :)

Original poster
newwave · 19/09/2011 23:20

Wrong, Cameron spouted his lies about bonuses at a Tory conference, Clegg may well have repeated it or said it first.

So yes Cameron is a liar

OP posts:
scaevola · 19/09/2011 23:30

Did Cameron really say that at a conference? Not sure.

He definitely was saying it pre-election - as the Conservative party website shows. Not quite as stated in this thread, though: he was calling for a lower limit - £2k.

ttosca · 21/09/2011 21:31

Good thing there are people like Cogito and niceguy around to defend the Tories whilst they attack civil society and the living standards of 95% of the population...

meditrina · 21/09/2011 22:00

I think they have a point when they say that a cap on future bonuses should have been a condition of the bail out.

I don't think it can be enforced now (more's the pity).

Original poster
newwave · 21/09/2011 22:12

It can be enforced now but the Tories will never upset their shyster friends.

Tax the bonuses as unearned income at a 95% rate would be a good idea :)

Cuts for the poor and bonuses for the rich it was ever the Tory way.

OP posts:
meditrina · 21/09/2011 23:03

I think it would be a dangerous precedent for the Government to overturn employment contracts. When they were joining the arrangement (by providing the bail out) they had the opportunity to add strings, but not at other times.

A punitive tax on unearned income would hit pensioners disproportionately hard, and I would not support such a measure as I believe many to be in a vulnerable position already and one from which opportunities to secure alternative sources of income are highly straitened.

niceguy2 · 21/09/2011 23:11

I doubt it can be. I don't think the government (any govt) would ever get away with making retrospective changes to contracts.

The right time to have done this was when the bank were on their knees and the government had them by their bollocks. That chance was missed and you can't then expect someone else to come along later, change the terms of an existing contract and blame them for the impact of a contract they didn't sign!

I know people like to blame the Tories for everything but that one just takes the biscuit. Reminds me of Labour blaming the Tories for Barclays not paying enough corporation tax on earnings during their reign.

jackstarb · 22/09/2011 20:22

I'm not sure I've ever understood people's fixation on bonuses. Is it the idea that someone gets a lump sum as an 'extra' to their main salary? So they can't really need it? Because I'm pretty sure most bank workers relied on at least some of their bonus to pay mortgages and for holidays and the like.

One result of this obsession with bonuses is many banks have put up basic salaries for their most highly rated employees. So bonuses can be reduced - but total compensation remains level. (something Kweku Adoboli's UBS colleagues may be grateful for - I guess).

But it means banks' operational costs are no-longer tied so directly to their income. This is both messy and very risky. Not great for shareholders, higher risk for us - but ok for the bankers who manage to keep their jobs (the easiest way now to reduce operational costs is big redundancy programs).

You'd have thought Vince Cable would have understood all this. What with him supposedly having his great business career (at Shell) and his Richmond constituency having more than it's fair share of bankers. Hmm

ChickenLickn · 03/10/2011 23:51

"I think it would be a dangerous precedent for the Government to overturn employment contracts"

AHAHAHAHAHAAAA

Tell that to the government when they are slashing public sector pensions etc!

meditrina · 04/10/2011 07:26

If you look you will find that they have not changed the employment terms - variations in both future contributions and future pay-outs were included in the scheme.

But even if they had, it wouldn't be the same thing. If the Government is a party to the contract, then they have the locus to negotiate changes.

They have no standing in contracts between a private individual and a private company, and that is what would be a highly dangerous precedent.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page