Devildog

Here's an interesting comment from the Government's perspective:

"Last month, Chancellor Alistair Darling announced that the Treasury, as the major shareholder in the bank, would have the "right to consent" to how much RBS pays in bonuses and how they are paid"

Now, the "right to consent" is very different from the "right to block"

According to MSN news:

"As part of the terms of its latest deal to insure bad debts, the Government wants to dictate both the "quantum and shape" of the payouts at RBS for 2009.

The bank, which will be 84% state-owned under the terms of the Asset Protection Scheme (APS), will now have to agree the size of this year's payouts with UK Financial Investments (UKFI), the body set up to manage the public stakes in financial firms"

Now, again, "wanting to" and being "able to", are two entirely different matters.

Per the HM Treasury website:

UKFI itself is "a company wholly-owned by the Government. UKFI will manage the Government’s investments in financial institutions at arm’s length and on a commercial basis. UKFI’s overarching objectives are to protect and create value for taxpayers as shareholders; paying due regard to the maintenance of financial stablity, and to act in a way that promotes competition."

The point about managing the investment "at arms length" confirms that the Government itself has no say in the bonus payments.

Vince Cable clearly doesn't grasp what I've picked up in 2 minutes of research. Which is pretty much par for the course as far as the lib dems go, to be fair.

Thoughts (other than "all bankers are *******" ) ?