The Government are not going to allow Sir Fred to take his outrageous pension of £693,000 a year, vowing to take 'any measure' to prevent this happening.Sir Fred Goodwin thrashed out his pension deal in October when bailouts were being worked out, and at 50, would be very nicely set up for early retirement having just led RBS to the very brink of collapse according to government ministers. In reality, Sir Fred is being held up as a bit of a scapegoat as he is cannot be held personally responsible for the credit crunch. However, allowing a former banking chief who's recent track record cannot by any results-oriented measure be called 'successful' to walk away with effectively millions upon millions of public money is not acceptable.
Beyond that, having no problem with walking away with all that money, and being able to see it as one's entitlement is the attitude that is going to make Sir Fred public enemy No.1 in no time at all. Last night Commons Leader Harriet Harman stated that even if the pension could be upheld in a court of law, it certainly would not be held up in the court of public opinion. Leading the way for ministers to confidently predict that come what may, Sir Fred would not be allowed to live out the rest of his life on a 'state' pension that would exceed the expectations of almost an entire government department never mind an individual... A special Act of Parliament would be formed and invoked as a last resort if legal recourse is not successful.
City bonuses have also been cited as causing a bonus culture in private and public operations throughout the UK. It has been revealed that many Council Leaders are receiving three times the renumeration that the Prime Minister gets for running the entire country... These will no doubt become the next targets of the fact cat bonus witch-hunt... Salaries and bonus packages in excess of £600,000 have been recorded, one council leader receiving a £600,000 package even after being kicked out of office!
Related posts:
Gordon investigates bank payouts
Latest economic outlook
2 comments:
Where has this idea come from that because Sir Fred's contract says he is entitled to a pension of £693,000 gross p.a. that Parliament has no way of getting that money, misappropriated from the taxpayers, back to the taxpayers. Surely if the Chanellor of the Exchequer in his Budget introduces a Windfall Tax of a 99% deduction from the pension of any bank Executive in excess of £30,000 p.a., if that Bank is now part owned by the UK taxpapayer, there is nothing Sir Fred's highly paid lawyers can do to stop that money being clawed back by the Exchequer because it is part of English Law? Windfall Taxes have been introduced before and they are legal once passed by Parliament and given the Royal assent. If such a Windfall Tax is to be part of the Finance Bill, as Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dems, as well as Nationalists and Respect all seem agred that Sir Fred does not deserve this money it is virtually certain no MP nor peer would vote against such a Windfall Tax becoming Law. So once it is Law, Sir Fred's contract is still being honoured because his agreed gross pension amount is being paid to him. But if he fails to pay the tax due to the Inland Revenue, like every other UK citizen he can be charged with tax evasion, and so hopefully the scumbag will get a long stretch in jail as well. So why can this not be brought in with immediate effect in the light of Harriot Harman's promise.
Maybe that is one of the measures they will introduce - my feeling though, is that this is a negotiating stance. The Govt are saying "look we'll get the money one way or the other, so let's come up with a deal..."
I think we'll find that there will soon be some sort of agreement where he still gets a pension that is bigger than Gordon's salary...
Post a Comment