Harriet Harman on Sir Fred Goodwin

Optimist

1echidna wrote: »

If clown has the fat pensions of public service employees in his sights as well more power to his elbow (though not mine of course not that mine is public service or could be described as fat)

It would seem that they have already taken legal advice on defaulting


"It comes as financial experts warned that the recession has put an increasing number of pension funds under strain. The Treasury's admission was revealed via a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request, made by John Ralfe, a pensions consultant.
He told The Daily Telegraph: "I cannot believe the Government would renege on public sector pensions by cutting them, but they have, it appears, asked the question whether they could do so under European law.
"The Treasury continues to be in denial about the cost of new public sector pension promises and the implications for the total already promised."
There are 7,800 final salary schemes in the UK, which provide members with a pension based on their final salary – as opposed to defined contribution pensions, which rely on the performance of the stock market.
It is estimated that pensions already promised to public sector workers may cost taxpayers more than £750bn to deliver.
Last week, a Treasury official wrote back to say: "I am writing to confirm that we hold relevant information, in relation to your request for 'any papers showing whether the Government has taken advice or has a view on the legality under European law of, effectively, defaulting on public sector pensions'.
"We have now completed our consideration of where the public interest lies in relation to this information and have concluded that, in this case, the public interest lies in maintaining the FOI exemption. Without the ability to obtain full and frank legal advice the quality of the Government's decision-making would be much reduced and this would be contrary to the public interest."
It comes as experts predicted that private-sector companies will be "bankrupt by their pension deficits" this year.
Many companies are closing their final salary pension schemes as they can no longer afford to guarantee members that they will pay out what they promised.
Ros Altmann, a governor of the London School of Economics, said: "This year will see the reality of companies being bankrupted by their pension schemes."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/4862927/Government-takes-legal-advice-about-defaulting-on-paying-public-sector-pensions.html

itsnever2lateisit?

Retrospective legislation is a very dangerous path to go down. It goes against common law, and the only example I can think of ( The Child support Agency) was a complete mess.

Sir Fred Goodwin is a convenience to the Government as all this 'put him in the stocks' frenzy is diverting us from the real business of questioning Govt actions in the wider banking matters. Goodwins pension cost £16m or £33m depending who you believe. The RBS losses cost us all an additional £13bn, and AFAIK no one knows just how much will be required to keep RBS going

Cleaver

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

IFor the next 50 years, we can forget about equipping the defence forces adequately to defend us; we can forget about funding research for new cures; roads and bridges will fall into disrepair and be closed because there is no money to maintain and keep them safe. Civil servants, teachers, will be required to take a cut in salary (that happened in the 1930s). Unless we find a diamond mine or a vast new oil field within our national boundaries, we are stuffed - and very, very vulnerable to invasion by another country looking for somewhere to export their Third World immigrants or convicted criminals to. There will be a huge increase in crime, and not enough police to deal with it (police budgets have already been cut), huge increase in unemployment, massively expensive food. Even countries like Thailand are better off than the UK, as they at least can feed themselves.

Yes, I am very gloomy and - I think - with good reason.

December freebies: Barker & Barker dog treats, Jordans new fruity cereal
YouGov: £29.25
Street money (starting Christmas Day 2008): 30p :cool:

Yes, but you've found 30p on the street since Christmas. That's about 3p a week. So there is a silver lining to all the gloom, hey?

beaujolais-nouveau

itsnever2lateisit? wrote: »

Retrospective legislation is a very dangerous path to go down. It goes against common law ... all this 'put him in the stocks' frenzy is diverting us from the real business of questioning Govt actions in the wider banking matters.

Yes, I agree with you.

itsnever2lateisit? wrote: »

Goodwins pension cost £16m or £33m depending who you believe. The RBS losses cost us all an additional £13bn, and AFAIK no one knows just how much will be required to keep RBS going

Others have said that Goodwin will be paying tax on his pension but I can't help feeling that he will know how to reduce that to almost nil.

Cleaver

Oblivion wrote: »

Then again, he might not survive another six months. There are now a lot of very angry people out there wanting revenge.

Can we please put this is some sort of perspective? For goodness sake. It's a man with a large pension. If this is taking up someone's thoughts enough to the point where they want to inflict physcial harm then they need to take a long hard look at their life and get a grip.

And there aren't a lot of 'angry people looking for revenge'. 99% of people, when asked, would say that he seems a bit of a greedy sh*t and it's a bit of a disgrace. They would then forget about him and get on with their day. As should you.

Love_bargains_2

This witch hunt has gone too far. Getting that money back will not benefit anyone (it's equivalent to 50p for everyone in the UK), and the people who are supposed to be running this country are wasting their time trying to keep the tabloids happy, as usual.

Furthermore, it would be a shocking abuse of law and human rights to deny him a pension that he lawfully (if not honorably) obtained. To paraphrase someone far wiser than me: "I will not defend the size of his pension, but I will defend his right to keep it."

a_rather_tall_man

Masomnia wrote: »

I actually share your concerns! It's dangerous. I'd rather see [strike]Sir[/strike] Fred get £693k than Brown have the right to confiscate legal pensions.

I agree with this and a letter I read in the FT yesterday summed it up for me quite well.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef25a1f0-0537-11de-8166-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

If he's legally entitled to it then he should have it and it appears the government are stoking up public opinion and making him a scapegoat to cover their own failings seeing as it was likely it was signed off with their consent. Yes he screwed up but he is not the only one.

Harman's threatening tone is very nasty indeed and I too believe it would be the thin end of the wedge because if they started with Goodwins pension where would it end? Who would be comfortable with a change to legislation that enables the goverment to dictate whether you are entitled to your pension or not? Its certainly not a party I'd ever vote for.

bubblesmoney

no one is saying deny him a pension. but he was not of pensionable age, neither did he have 40y of full service at RBS, so how can he be discretionally allowed to get a full pension. yes he was discretionally allowed a full pension.

if you or i get awarded a full pension due to an administrative error then when the error is noted they will rectify the error. the same needs to be done in this case.

do you think any other RBS worker getting laid off without 40y of service will be discretionarily allowed a full pension? why the special treatment in him being given a full pension when he was not entitled to it if the proper rules were followed rather than a discretionary payout for his services.

Mozette

I think if I was Sir Fred and saw the way politicians all have their snouts in the trough, I'd wonder why the heck they think they're in a position to criticise me for taking a huge payoff when it was offered.

Wookster

a_rather_tall_man wrote: »

If he's legally entitled to it then he should have it and it appears the government are stoking up public opinion and making him a scapegoat to cover their own failings seeing as it was likely it was signed off with their consent. Yes he screwed up but he is not the only one.

Exactly - Crash & AD screwed up. They are now trying to divert attention. They were bosom buddies with all the bankers, including Goodwin and now that things have gone wrong the only reason they are jumping ship is because of the public anger, not because the bankers have failed. It is disgraceful. Why the media hasn't done a huge expose on Gordon's part in this crisis I don't know.

a_rather_tall_man wrote: »

Harman's threatening tone is very nasty indeed and I too believe it would be the thin end of the wedge because if they started with Goodwins pension where would it end? Who would be comfortable with a change to legislation that enables the goverment to dictate whether you are entitled to your pension or not? Its certainly not a party I'd ever vote for.

There are only two words to describe this: mob justice. Preston's call to simply stop paying is shameful. You can't dispense with the rule of law simply because you don't like the results, similarly creating laws to apply retrospectively is equally odious. This is coming close to Zimbabwean disregard for the rule of law.