Skip to main content

Prime Minister is wrong to fight an EU cap on bankers bonuses.

The news that Prime Minister, David Cameron, intends to 'fight' EU plans to cap bankers bonuses is perhaps not surprising. He failed to take any action or position on excessive bonuses two years ago. It simply demonstrates that his hand wringing over excessive bonuses bankers give themselves is just that,  gesture politics.

The government are concerned that a cap on bonuses would affect the position of the city of London as a financial centre competing for top talent globally. But this is why action must be taken at an international level and the EU move is a step in that direction.  Precisely what level the cap should have and what conditions should be subject to debate and decision.

There is always the argument that if you seek to restrict greed, and it is greed, then the wealthy will find other ways to satisfy their avarice. We mustn't increase taxes, else they will move their money elsewhere etc. We cannot go on allowing these greedy people to blackmail us in this way. So, yes there are valid arguments not to cap bonuses, but the question is whether the benefits outweigh them. I believe in a time of austerity they do.

Any bonuses incorporated contractually should be dependent on long term results and not simply short term gains that might be wiped out over time. The current bankers bonuses are obscene. Through incompetence and greed, the banks brought the financial system to its knees. Failure to apply due diligence has now led to an austerity programme from which the rich bankers have ring-fenced themselves. This cannot be justifiable. If ordinary people are having to make adjustments, then so too must those in the financial sector.

Since the bailout, losses at RBS have now reached £34bn. Yet, despite this loss, the bank has paid out £679m in bonuses, some £287m of which is to its investment bankers. Of course RBS needs to attract good people, but it also has a duty to the public and consumers.

Sensible rules regarding salaries and bonuses are good for shareholders, consumers and taxpayers. We are all stakeholders in one way or other in the banks. There needs to be transparency and accountability in setting bonuses. It is said that if bonuses are capped, then salaries will increase and flexibility will be lost. In bad times it would be difficult to reduce salaries whilst it is possible to reduce bonuses. If only that was true, but history has told us that bonuses have been set on short term gains rather than sustainable profits or improvements for customers and shareholders. Salaries can be based on clear goals, and should there be 'failure' of the magnitude we have seen in recent times, then those salary holders can be shown the door. Bonuses have reeked havoc in the business, an contributed to the development of speculative and toxic debt. From that we have all suffered.

I agree with Mr Cameron when he said of bankers and their bonuses:  "They have got to have proper regard in terms of restraint when they have had so much money from the taxpayer and they have made so many mistakes in the past."

Absolutely, which is why they should not be surprised we may wish to cap and impose sensible conditions on such bonuses.

Postscript

Swiss voters have have backed executive pay and bonus caps in a referendum. 70% voters backed proposals to give shareholders more control an impose the world's strictest regulation of boardroom pay and bonuses.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha