Jump to content

Do we have the right to expect the coalition to stick to their word?


Guest sibon

Recommended Posts

Much has been made on this forum of the reasons for the Lib Dems shunning most of their manifesto. So, they are a minority party. They can't implement most of their ideas. Apparently it also allows them to break pledges at will.

 

Today the entire coalition gets a chance to show the country what to expect. Consider this story:

 

Bankers to pay themselves outrageous levels of bonuses again.

 

and

 

compare it to section 4 of the coalition agreement.

 

Will we finally see Cameron and Clegg keeping their word?

 

there isn't really anything they can do about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you expand on that please?

 

the reality is that there nothing the government can do to control bonuses

 

unless they can get international agreement in controlling bonuses then the staff and or the banks as a whole have the option of relocating to a less aggressive location and whether we like it or not the banks do provide a large chunk of tax revenue and employment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the reality is that there nothing the government can do to control bonuses

 

unless they can get international agreement in controlling bonuses then the staff and or the banks as a whole have the option of relocating to a less aggressive location and whether we like it or not the banks do provide a large chunk of tax revenue and employment

 

Most of the employment wouldn't move even if the bank HQ did. I'm sure that a determined Government could come up with a way of taxing banking activity in the UK so that revenue loss was marginal at worst.

 

In any case, I don't buy the idea that the banks would all move if we required the executives to be in it with the rest of us. There are plenty of lower tax regimes out there, but we still have banks here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there isn't really anything they can do about it

 

So, why is it part of the coalition agreement?

 

Is there anything about this Government that we can take at face value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, why is it part of the coalition agreement?

 

Is there anything about this Government that we can take at face value?

 

perhaps they hoped they could get the banks to play ball

 

Is there anything about any Government that we can take at face value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is different though. They didn't make the pledges in the coalition agreement in order to get elected. They did it as a template for working together.

 

Who did they make a promise to? Is it an election pledge you're talking about, or an agreement between two parties? If the latter, then what does it matter if two parties tear up an agreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the employment wouldn't move even if the bank HQ did. I'm sure that a determined Government could come up with a way of taxing banking activity in the UK so that revenue loss was marginal at worst.

 

In any case, I don't buy the idea that the banks would all move if we required the executives to be in it with the rest of us. There are plenty of lower tax regimes out there, but we still have banks here.

 

this isn't about taxing activity though, this is about bonuses, most of which are being paid in shares which appear over a period of several years.

 

the fear is that the handful of individuals who are actually good at banking decamp to another country and the banks would find it difficult to attract and retain new talent unless they did too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who did they make a promise to? Is it an election pledge you're talking about, or an agreement between two parties?

 

You'd need to click the links in the OP to find that out:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fair system for bankers bonuses would be to pay them a notional basic and then a positive or negative commision on top dependant on whether they make a profit or a loss, maybe with the minimum wage as the lowest the clawbacks could take a lossmaking banker down to. That should suit the "good" bankers and get rid of the lossmaking twerps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.