It is astonishing how British politicians and media have latched on to the pension arrangements of Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Goodwin does indeed seem ghastly, the sort of domineering boss all too common in commercial life. One can easily imagine the hapless middle managers threatening each other with "Sir Fred said this" as the bank lurched onwards into jeopardy.
But his pension is merely an ugly pebble on a beach of obscenity. Removing or reducing his contractual entitlements will have no real effect on RBS or the taxpayer. It would be nothing more than a gesture, but with a possible implication that the government will be seen to not respect contractual obligations. That is not a wise signal to risk giving.
The current crisis is complex and, to adapt Eliot, politicians and pundits cannot bear very much complexity. So it is personalised, and a scapegoat makes it all so simple.
For the government it is a convenient distraction; for the media it is a good story. Ultimately, however, it is irrelevant to the issues which they should be focusing on.
The hapless conniving RBS middle managers may (hopefully) have now got their desserts. It is sad if they are to be replaced by hapless commentators telling each other that "Sir Fred shouldn't do that" as the wider economy itself lurches onwards into deeper jeopardy.
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I think that it's important that something be done about Fred the Shread's pension.
It has been demonstrated numerous times that people are willing to forego goods for themselves in order to punish defectors from social understandings.
It is outside the comprehension of most people that someone could perform as poorly as Fred and still come out a winner.
If Blears is right about the payment not being a pension, but an ex-gratia payment from the board, then he should have the money removed. If she's wrong (as she probably is) then it's not up to the government to interevene in the pension.
But it strikes me that Freds title should be removed - I'm sure a pretext could be found for that. Second, has he not failed in his duty to the shareholders by his disastorous management of RBS? Surely the shareholders have some right to take action against him for the poor decisions that he made or over-saw. Given the actual losses suffered by the shareholders, this might see his monthly stipend given entirely over to the shareholders every month. That would be justice!
No doubt the brilliant lawyerly mind will shred these ideas, but I think that the political anger felt against Fred is taken into account also!
Can't we just tax these fuckers? 100% tax on bonuses etc. Why not?
And what would Sir Fred have done to ant defalcating bank clerk ?
GW
Post a Comment