Our campaign to claw back Sir Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin's pension continues to gather momentum.
His package of £693,000 a year means this man - who brought RBS down with his his greed and mismanagement - will effectively be getting a pension paid by the state that's 147 times more than the basic state pension.
In fact he will receive the equivalent of a year's basic state pension of £4,716 EVERY 60 hours - and he's not even a pensioner - he's 50!
I still intend to hammer this message home, though I fully expect the Tory's will try to attack me now - I see their cyber attack dogs have already started yapping!
I was up at 5.45am to get to King's Cross and sit in a radio car for a pre-recorded interview with Evan Davis of the Today Programme. I do like his style and he's completely across his subject which makes for a good debate.
I had to do a pre-record as I had to catch the 6.35am train to Hull to see my NHS dentist - one of my crown's gone again. So once it's fixed, I'll get the train back down to London this afternoon and then I'm off to the South West Regional conference tomorow morning to talk about Go Fourth. Not bad for a pensioner who's supposedly retired from politics!
Anyway, I've been getting messages from people who didn't hear the Today interview so here's the link.
I'm delighted that more than 7,000 people have now completed our Shred the Pension survey. The results haven't changed drastically since last night - in fact, people are getting angrier - 98.4% now want us to claw back Sir Fred's pension.
I really believe if he continues to refuse to reconsider this obscene pension package, UKFI and RBS should just stop it and let him sue.
Go on Sir Fred - take us to the court of public opinion! I'm pretty sure I know what the judgement would be.
Finally, here's the updated survey in detail:
1. RBS, a bank that the public has a 70% share in, has just reported loses of £24 billion for last year. Do you think that the man responsible for this failure, former RBS Chief Executive Sir Fred Goodwin should now start receiving a £693,000 a year pension? 2. RBS, UKFI and the Government have all asked Sir Fred to reconsider his pension package. Do you think we should now attempt to claw back his pension? Yes 98.4% 3. If you are in favour of clawing back Sir Fred's pension, how much would you lime him to receive a year? Upto £500,000 0.6% £250,000 - £499,999 0.6% Less than £50,000 31.1% Nothing 48.5% 4. Do you think it's right that Sir Jackie Stewart should keep his sponsorship contract with RBS, worth a reported £4m? Yes 4.3% No 88.6% Don't Know 7.1% 5.Do you think that RBS should rip up Sir Jackie's contract and take the risk of him taking the bank to court? Yes 78.3% No 9.0% Don't Know 12.6%
Yes 1.1%
No 98.7%
Don't Know 0.2%
No 1.1%
Don't Know 0.5%
£100,000 - £249,000 4.6%
£50,000 - £99,999 14.6%
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
So Labour introduced the register of members interests and the freedom of information act. Labour also led the push to restrict what expenses are listed. The rest of us can't claim willy nilly without receipts, why should MPs? MPs may need somewhere to stay whilst in London, but why should I have to contribute furnishing their home to a higher standard than I can afford myself? And what good is the FOI if the very people we want to scrutinise can veto what information we get?
Don't get me wrong, Goodwin should only get his pre-RBS pension rights, if that. However, to have politicians talking about the "court of public opinion" one minute, and saying "it's within the rules" the next, is rather hard to swallow.
This may be a website to promote a fourth Labour term, but you started the thread! And unless Labour understand our frustration at what seem to be unjustifiable expenses at the taxpayer's expense, you're seriously going to struggle.
The big difference is that MPs get to vote on their own pay and expenses, they appoint Michael Martin to head a review committee and they also get to veto changes.
As long as that remains the case the outrageous rules will remain.
Sadly an MPS Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Whiter than white really was just a murkier shade of that last lot.
At least the Tories only took cash for asking questions, Labour take cash for amending laws.
And John if you’re reading this. This is a big issue. The electorate kicked the Tories out mainly due to sleaze. I certainly voted Labour because of it. Your team have tinkered at the edges with things like the FOI Act. But you have done nothing like enough.
Cleaning up, expenses, second homes, outside interests, cash for laws etc would be a real vote winner.
Demanding a bankers pension back is not.
Tarquin - this blog is about my thoughts, my beliefs and my hope to help deliver a Labour Fourth Term. As such I am highly partisan. Sorry you don't agree with me but I respect your comments.
Duncan - Labour has a very proud record. I would have loved to have seen regional assemblies but we needed the public to vote for them. It's called democracy and the North East didn't want them at the time. I still believe we will get them eventually.
On expenses, let's not forget Labour introduced the register of members interest and the freedom of information act. An MP whose constituency is outside London needs a second home. I personally think this has been blown up by the Tories for political reasons, but people in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones, as we've started to discover.
Alan, I have every sympathy with your view but we have to balance it with not driving wealth creators out of Britain - however I'd like to see us clamp down hard on tax loopholes that allow the wealthy to use offshore accounts to reduce their tax payments.
On my pension, I'm pretty proud of Labour's record - low inflation, low interest rates and the longest period of growth since the war. There are other things I wish we could have achieved, but on balance Labour has made this country better - better schools, reduced waiting lists and more jobs.
The reason why I'm pushing for Goodwin's pension to be reduced or stopped is that if we hadn't bailed out the banks he wouldn't have a pension pot. His greed and mismanagement got us into this position and I don't see why we should reward. If you don't think I've achieved anything, well that's your opinion and I respect it.
And Cath, we haven't lost touch with the public. Our campaign to reduce bonuses and stop the pension are driven by the public. We saved the banks to keep people in their houses and in their jobs. The Tories would have let them all go to the wall - just like they did in the 80s.
Finally, we try to publish all comments (unlike Nadine Dorris) but leave out those who swear and are offensive (only a very small minority.)
But don't forget this is a site that's campaigning for a Labour Fourth Term!
Anyway, thanks for your comments - even if you don't agree with me.
JP
I predict that you will hide links to this entire thread, and certainly not answer any of questions honestly, if at all. Embarrased JP? Ashamed?
Oh, and your survey questions are 'leading' and contain rather patronising assumptions(more dishonesty).
http://www.order-order.com/2009/02/prescotts-pension-hypocrisy.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3440819.ece
What do you think the average Joe thinks when he reads this and then sees you demanding bankers pay their bonuses back.
Once the politicians establish the principle that its OK to help themselves at the trough, then all we have left to debate is the degree to which you can do it.
This turns voters off, John. Big time. Its hard to engage a sceptic when he knows hes looking at a hypocrite.
So clean up politics first, its was a primary promise after all. We were all fed up with Tory sleaze and turned to your team for a better deal.
Think you’ve done a good job????
Leaving aside the actual amount for a moment (that will largely be based on Fred's final salary), how is the Goodwin deal any different to those that take place in the public sector on a regular basis. Sir Fred's pension entitlement has simply been enhanced in order to compensate for any "actuarial reduction", i.e. the amount by which his pension would have been reduced to account for his retirement age.
But this sort of deal goes on all the time with Teachers, Headteachers, NHS staff, Local Govt staff, Civil Servants .. and , oh yes, politicians. If Goodwin's pension is clawed back doesn't this set a precedent. Wouldn't we be able to claw back anyone's pensions we thought unworthy of the amount paid - including yours, Mr Prescott.
"The labour govt has brought us to the edge of financial oblivion (as well as lying to get us into war, etc). Do you think the men responsible (Blair, Brown, Prescott..) should continue to rob the hard working people of this country by receiving salaries, expenses and pensions from the public purse that are far above those of the average citizen?".
Could you please run this question as part of your survey. I'd be very interested in the result.
Does Fred's pension match yours?
Does he have 4 homes to live in?
Would you rate your time in HMG as a success?
Accountability isnt for the public sector or for politicians.
Silly boy
By NEW LABOUR
Bit odd that.
it was the board and a government minister who approved the pension pay out and it is now unreasonable for you and Brown to complain after the event.
There are a lot of people who are not happy with the level of expenses that MPs have claimed over the years. How would you like it if some future government came along and said it would introduce a one line bill to target MPs as a group.
Get a grip - lord Myners made a mistake, expensive i know but nothing compared to the true cost of what Gordon brown has caused over the last 10 years.
I heard him speaking on the radio earlier and to be honest his voice now grates on so much I just want him and the labour govt gone.
Its time for a conservative govt to clear up the mess (again)
I think this is a bogus argument. You were part of a government that embraced capitalism. Now, capitalism in any form, even 70s style corporatalism, relies on some extent on greed to function. The point of government is to provide the framework whereby that greed is for the greater good.
I don't want to exonorate the banker's for taking on too much risk; that was due to foolishness and well as greed. And greed can be taken to immoral extremes. I'm just saying that they were supposed to be greedy to some extent - that's the point of capitalism. The government's job is to put the laws in place to channel that greed, and to protect the wider public from harmful forms of greed. Surely the British government has failed in that job to some extent. Maybe understandably, maybe due to events abroad, but the failure is there.
I'd be interested to know how you'd respond to my analysis. Thankyou.
What is an acceptable pension? What is excessive to one person is not to another…. I think that sums up you socialists. I would say that MP pensions are excessive but good luck to you I’m sure you have a nice little pot waiting for you and I’m sure when you look in the mirror you can convince the man looking back that your pension is justified and acceptable when people around are losing their job, homes and so-on.
So please get off the moral bandwagon and fight for what is right…. An investigation to whether Fred Goodwin and others should be charged under the companies act.
On the Today programme, you suggested that the pension (or some of the pension, it wasn't clear) should be stopped; and if Sir Fred didn't like it, he could sue.
It is clear that if he sued, he would win: a QC has recently confirmed that view. Therefore he would sue, and would win.
So then, in addition to the pension, court costs would have to be paid too.
Can you explain how that would help matters?
The RBS board decided on Sir Fred's final pension.
Yet the government had the choice in regards to adding to his pension, or sacking the man! They choice not to sack him, or terminate his contract & pay off his contract.
Sir Fred should have been sacked. The takeover of the bank that has brought down his bank was his responsibility.
But what the building society "bank" saga has shown up is that Labour's 10 yrs of growth was illusionary. They were spending the banks tax that represented nothing.
Got it!
You really came across in the interview as not in touch with reality.
The boom that you were so proud of in the interview was generated by government spending, PFI debt and personal debt, all funded by the banks that you are now so keep to denigrate. The Government is as much part of the problem as the banks.
In the TV programme you good wife came across as so much more intelligent than yourself. Why do you keep reinforcing the impression by your self preening.
If you are ignorant of the facts keep quiet and keep people guessing, they might never know. What you don't want to do is go on the Today programme and prove it to the whole population of the UK.
So when is he going to start cleaning the practises up of previous governments' (Not Labour) who put their hands in the till some time ago with the Miners and other pension groups
Review long time overdue.
Come on Gordon also HIGHLIGHT which goverment did this and how your government is going to clean it up.