Labour still doesn’t get it!

As usual Labour is missing the point and confusing the issue re RBS/Hester/bonus refusal business, plus totally neglecting the possible ramifications that might follow.

Since Stephen Hester made his announcement, Laborites are celebrating and justifying their victory by saying: “look, look even Osborne and other Tories are saying its good Mr. Hester declined his bonus…” when the two are not the same. Hoping someone forgoes a reward is very different to bullying a person into passing up what’s legally and contractually theirs!

Labour in their quest for something, just anything, to become relevant, has missed a crucial point.

RBS was bailed out by public money NOT nationalized and became public. And although the public might own the majority shares they don’t own the company. Moreover, in RBS’ case, the 84% share is held and managed through UK Financial Investments Limited with limited voting rights of 75% in order for the bank to retain it’s listing on the London Stock Exchange….Read it in full here

That difference is what made the Tories say time and time again: “it’s not our place to ask ‘but’ it will be nice if…..” when on the other hand, Ed Miliband and his gang of bullies charged and ‘demanded’ Hester gives up his bonus.

Let’s simplify things a little. In a hypothetical situation; person A, who looks after a large number of people via his business, hit some hard times. So he goes to person B and asks for a loan. The two agreed on an amount, terms and conditions of payments plus how to operate the business going forward. A few years’ later things pick up a little for person A, so he decides – within the agreement – to buy a few thank you presents for some of the people who worked hard to get the business through its toughest time. Person B finds out about the presents and demands the people not to accept them, because things aren’t so good on his end and he cannot afford to reward his own family!

Now, where is the sense in that?

What happened in RBS is an ugly and dangerous precedent. Ugly because it highlights envy with all it’s demoralizing unpleasantness and dangerous because the next time a private bank is going under will rather collapse and drag millions of innocent clients down with it than take a red penny from the government!