Dave's Maggie Moment

lolz.

And you call yourself a history teacher. You are utterly clueless.

The growth in heavy industry was fuelled by the wars - the Seven Years' War (1756-63), the American War of Independence (1775-83) and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793-1802, 1803-15).

And you call yourself a history teacher. You are utterly clueless.

Why don't you cut the stupid, childish insults and stay with the debate. If you disagree with him, say why, instead of trolling your own threads and hurling ad hominem garbage around.

And you call yourself a history teacher. You are utterly clueless.

 

The growth in heavy industry was fuelled by the wars - the Seven Years' War (1756-63), the American War of Independence (1775-83) and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793-1802, 1803-15).

But once again you attribute a huge piece of economic and social movement to one simple cause :"Oh, it was simply wars with France and that!" This is why your quite hilarious assertions that I am 'clueless' will always make me laugh because my fascist friend, I will always be right.

Why don't you cut the stupid, childish insults and stay with the debate. If you disagree with him, say why, instead of trolling your own threads and hurling ad hominem garbage around.

n/t.

But once again you attribute a huge piece of economic and social movement to one simple cause :"Oh, it was simply wars with France and that!" This is why your quite hilarious assertions that I am 'clueless' will always make me laugh because my fascist friend, I will always be right.

It was the hostility between us and France that drove industry forward. Without our hostility with France driving industrial innovation we would not have built the most magnificent Empire the world will ever see.

If you require further education on the subject just ask.

It was the hostility between us and France that drove industry forward. Without our hostility with France driving industrial innovation we would not have built the most magnificent Empire the world will ever see.

 

If you require further education on the subject just ask.

So we ignore the American Civil War, innovations such as the Spinning Jenny, child labour, the structure of the working week, migration to cities and enclosure do we? I'm glad you've made the Industrial Revolution so simple.

Just go back to calling to EU a 'commie conspiracy' will you and leave the history to those with qualifications higher than a HND.

Just go back to calling to EU a 'commie conspiracy' will you and leave the history to those with qualifications higher than a HND.

Particularly when some of those at the left of the Political Spectrum is as horrified of the Merkozy proposals and the limits it will put on individual countries to pursue their own fiscal policy:

Consider this: as Paul Mason has written, "by enshrining in national and international law the need for balanced budgets and near-zero structural deficits, the eurozone has outlawed expansionary fiscal policy".

Read that last bit carefully. Left-wing governments of all hues will, in effect, be banned by this treaty. If the French or the German left returns to power in the near future (and both are in a good position to do so), it will be illegal for them to respond to the global economic catastrophe with anything but austerity. An economic stimulus is forbidden – because the treaty has buried Keynesianism.

Cameron opposed the treaty because he feared the effect it would have on the City, which,after all, bankrolls his party. But just because he opposed the treaty doesn't mean the automatic response of the left should be to throw its weight behind it. I proudly marched against the invasion of Iraq; I wasn't deterred by the fact the BNP opposed it, too.

François Hollande – the Scoialist candidate for the French presidency – has already spoken out against a treaty cooked up by Europe's overwhelmingly right-of-centre governments. If we're going to listen to European leaders, Hollande is a sounder bet than avowed right-wingers like Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.

After this stitch-up, the left really needs to have a long, hard think about its attitude to the EU as it is currently constructed. There's still a sense that any criticism of the EU puts you in the same box as swivel-eyed Ukip-ers who rant about gypsies in shire inns. But there's a powerful left critique that needs to be made.

There are some decent arguments/debates to be had regarding democracy, representation, fiscal policy, trade, taxation etc, but sadly they do seem a tad lost on some on here who seem to be able to bang the same old drum LOL.

The problem is Um is that the right wingers cannot fathom that many of us left of centre also do not want a "Europe" in its current guise but also don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

After this stitch-up, the left really needs to have a long, hard think about its attitude to the EU as it is currently constructed. There's still a sense that any criticism of the EU puts you in the same box as swivel-eyed Ukip-ers who rant about gypsies in shire inns. But there's a powerful left critique that needs to be made.

 

There are some decent arguments/debates to be had regarding democracy, representation, fiscal policy, trade, taxation etc, but sadly they do seem a tad lost on some on here who seem to be able to bang the same old drum LOL.

Exactly right.

How many people were surveyed? Was it from a true cross section of society, or were the results just from polls on the daily mail website, which has a very particular anti-europe following? etc etc

And that's not forgetting the leading questions that they have used...although I wouldn't expect the Daily Mail to be particularly scientific about it.

Of course, the one advantage of Cameron's veto is that while he has stuck his foot in the door in a way that will almost certainly disadvantage the City (ie the sole purpose of exercising veto having boomeranged back on him through his impulsive inexperience), it will probably assist European and UK left-of-centre parties as they come to power over the next year or three.

Go Dave and the unintended consequences of incompetence!

...it will probably assist European and UK left-of-centre parties as they come to power over the next year or three...

Quite possibly the funniest statement ever made on this forum...

Quite possibly the funniest statement ever made on this forum...

Next French general election: April and May 2012

Next German federal elections: October 2013

Next British election: priceless (or any time Nick decides he's had enough, so probably sometime between the two above)

As you say, funny - or at least we of the politics of progress will be laughing.

Next British election: priceless (or any time Nick decides he's had enough, so probably sometime between the two above)

 

As you say, funny - or at least we of the politics of progress will be laughing.

I always pictured the Lib-Dems as the left of centre party. A cobbled together coalition of the pillow biting Liberals and Woy Jenkins disaffected Labour rebels. Their party is based on the desperate search for power by an inconsequentual party and as from the beginning, they have always been prepared to sacrifice their principles for a shot at power.

This has been demonstrated by their behaviour in power and they have been found out. At the next election, their supporters will desert them in droves and even they aren't stupid enough to vote for the fall guy that the Labour party have installed.

This country will swing decisively to the right as the economy improves. It will begin at the Olympics and it will be like 1936 all over again, without the subsequent World War.

I always pictured the Lib-Dems as the left of centre party. A cobbled together coalition of the pillow biting Liberals and Woy Jenkins disaffected Labour rebels. There party is based on the desperate search for power by an inconsequentual party and as from the beginning, they have always been prepared to sacrifice their principles for a shot at power.

 

This has been demonstrated by their behaviour in power and they have been found out. At the next election, their supporters will deset them in droves and even they aren't stupid enough to vote for the fall guy that the Labour party have installed.

 

This country will swing decisively to the right as the economy improves. It will begin at the Olympics and it will be like 1936 all over again, without the subsequent World War.

Wrong, but better wait and see how wrong you are. There is no evidence whatsoever of a decisive 'swing to the right', here or in France or Germany.

No mention of the impending defeats for Merkozy? And your comment about 1936 is frankly a bit odd.

Wrong, but better wait and see how wrong you are. There is no evidence whatsoever of a decisive 'swing to the right', here or in France or Germany

A successful Olympics is always good for the government of the day. Why is that opinion odd?

I am taking a wild guess that you work in the public sector. Why would anyone else consider voting Socialist until we have a budget surplus to waste and that won't be for at least 10 years...

This country will swing decisively to the right as the economy improves.

Correct. And i'm sure it won't have escaped the atention of DC's advisors just how well received his veto has been.

It'll be interesting to see next weeks figures on ukpollingreport...

Could the Tories be level with Labour?

A successful Olympics is always good for the government of the day. Why is that opinion odd?

 

I am taking a wild guess that you work in the public sector. Why would anyone else consider voting Socialist until we have a budget surplus to waste and that won't be for at least 10 years...

Next time I pay my corporation tax I must remember to think: Oh wait, aren't I in the public sector? Nor do I run a company sponging off the state, as so many do in health, defence, transport, education, etc. Once again, you're hopelessly wrong.

And again, what evidence is there in France, Germany or the UK that there is a decisive electoral swing to the right? It would have to be happening right now because elections in two of those countries are certainly within the next two years, and the other one is, in all likelihood, imminent, judging by the hurt feelings of Nick.

What is clegg upto, Friday he was supporting the veto, now he is bleating about why it is a bad deal for the uk. This isn't exactly convincing me that he is a strong leader

What is clegg upto, Friday he was supporting the veto, now he is bleating about why it is a bad deal for the uk. This isn't exactly convincing me that he is a strong leader

He's going through the same thought processes that will eventually sink in elsewhere: Cameron has acted with all the tactical sense of those commanding the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Of course, the one advantage of Cameron's veto is that while he has stuck his foot in the door in a way that will almost certainly disadvantage the City (ie the sole purpose of exercising veto having boomeranged back on him through his impulsive inexperience), it will probably assist European and UK left-of-centre parties as they come to power over the next year or three.

 

Go Dave and the unintended consequences of incompetence!

He's going through the same thought processes that will eventually sink in elsewhere: Cameron has acted with all the tactical sense of those commanding the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Next time I pay my corporation tax I must remember to think: Oh wait, aren't I in the public sector? Nor do I run a company sponging off the state, as so many do in health, defence, transport, education, etc. Once again, you're hopelessly wrong.

 

And again, what evidence is there in France, Germany or the UK that there is a decisive electoral swing to the right? It would have to be happening right now because elections in two of those countries are certainly within the next two years, and the other one is, in all likelihood, imminent, judging by the hurt feelings of Nick.

I must admit, I discounted the possibility that you were that rare beast, the socialist capitalist. I thought that particular breed had left the political arena with Tony Blair. The problem with political dogma, the type of which you are exhibiting in the face of evidence to the contrary, is that you will stick with it, all the way down the road to ruin along which Gordon Brown was taking us. All the way to an emergency loan from the IMF, a point we arrived at under the previous Labour government to the last one. What you haven't realised is that the current Labour party has been mobilised by the leftist trade unions, aghast at the necessary public spending cuts that have been forced upon us by the circumstances that were created by the last Labour party. What you also haven't realised is that the public budgetary rules that are to be forced upon the rest of the euro lemmings, would prevent this country from either quantitive easing or public spending increases that would drag us out of the Brown stuff into which we were dropped. Of course, the only winner in the new EU order will be Germany, who will dominate the economic policies of the region to the detriment of the rest.

PS. I voted for Tony Blairs labour party. Ed Milliband? Ed Balls? Jeez, would anyone?

I must admit, I discounted the possibility that you were that rare beast, the socialist capitalist. I thought that particular breed had left the political arena with Tony Blair. The problem with political dogma, the type of which you are exhibiting in the face of evidence to the contrary, is that you will stick with it, all the way down the road to ruin along which Gordon Brown was taking us. All the way to an emergency loan from the IMF, a point we arrived at under the previous Labour government to the last one. What you haven't realised is that the current Labour party has been mobilised by the leftist trade unions, aghast at the necessary public spending cuts that have been forced upon us by the circumstances that were created by the last Labour party. What you also haven't realised is that the public budgetary rules that are to be forced upon the rest of the euro lemmings, would prevent this country from either quantitive easing or public spending increases that would drag us out of the Brown stuff into which we were dropped. Of course, the only winner in the new EU order will be Germany, who will dominate the economic policies of the region to the detriment of the rest.

 

PS. I voted for Tony Blairs labour party. Ed Milliband? Ed Balls? Jeez, would anyone?

So you're going for a hat trick of errors, then.

I did not vote for Brown; I am not a member of a political party and at one time or another have voted for all three of the main ones; and of course I've realised the budgetary consequences of the proposed new rules, which is why I mentioned them in my earlier posts on this page!

The only winner is, as you correctly (for once!) say, is Merkel's Germany - doubly so now that Dave has slung his hook and accidentally acted in the worst interests of the City.

The fact the The City aren't jumping for joy speaks volumes and the silence of the CBI is deafening.

It appears to me, increasingly, that the UK government have been totally out maneuvered by the French & Germans.

I genuinely don't know what the answer is but we are still spending the same on the EU, are still governed by the same rules and regs but appear in a much weaker position and on the way to an "out" vote, which The City and business don't want.

So you're going for a hat trick of errors, then.

 

I did not vote for Brown; I am not a member of a political party and at one time or another have voted for all three of the main ones; and of course I've realised the budgetary consequences of the proposed new rules, which is why I mentioned them in my earlier posts on this page!

 

The only winner is, as you correctly (for once!) say, is Merkel's Germany - doubly so now that Dave has slung his hook and accidentally acted in the worst interests of the City.

The fact the The City aren't jumping for joy speaks volumes and the silence of the CBI is deafening.

 

It appears to me, increasingly, that the UK government have been totally out maneuvered by the French & Germans.

 

I genuinely don't know what the answer is but we are still spending the same on the EU, are still governed by the same rules and regs but appear in a much weaker position and on the way to an "out" vote, which The City and business don't want.

The only winner is, as you correctly (for once!) say, is Merkel's Germany - doubly so now that Dave has slung his hook and accidentally acted in the worst interests of the City.

You obviously have no clue about what Cameron actually did in Brussels, have you? He vetoed a change to the EU treaty that allowed for Brussels to dictate our national budget.

Please explain how that adversely affects the City??

Actually, don't bother...just read this and learn...

Nothing that happened last Friday in Brussels will change the above. Britain and especially the City of London will still be a full member of the single market and continue to derive benefits (or profits) from that.

You obviously have no clue about what Cameron actually did in Brussels, have you? He vetoed a change to the EU treaty that allowed for Brussels to dictate our national budget.

 

Please explain how that adversely affects the City??

 

 

Actually, don't bother...just read this and learn...

Pretty selective quoting GM - a touch shameful, that.

That same article goes on to say:

It's very unclear at this early stage, and before any new EU Treaty has been even written, whether the City will lose out in the long run.

But if it were to, it could only result from banks being affected by any future deals - as yet not negotiated nor agreed.

The problem for Britain is that it may in future arrive to the negotiating table in Brussels and be handed a done deal from the remaining 26 EU member states which cannot be blocked as unanimity is no longer required except in the case of taxation.

Let's take another example. Germany's Deutsche Bank is the largest single banking employer in the City of London. French, Spanish and Italian banks also have a significant presence here.

Will they stay in the same numbers if their governments make it politically and/or fiscally disadvantageous to do so?

Former Labour City Minister and investment banker Lord Myners told the BBC that by "isolating" itself, Britain had forced London-based banks to face a dilemma.

"Do they continue to put all their resources behind supporting their activities in the City of London or do they begin to build up other centres of excellence elsewhere in Europe?" he asked.

"I think the balance has tilted quite strongly as a consequence of the petulance of the prime minister."

Pretty selective quoting GM - a touch shameful, that.

 

That same article goes on to say:

 

 

It's very unclear at this early stage, and before any new EU Treaty has been even written, whether the City will lose out in the long run.

 

But if it were to, it could only result from banks being affected by any future deals - as yet not negotiated nor agreed.

 

The problem for Britain is that it may in future arrive to the negotiating table in Brussels and be handed a done deal from the remaining 26 EU member states which cannot be blocked as unanimity is no longer required except in the case of taxation.

 

Let's take another example. Germany's Deutsche Bank is the largest single banking employer in the City of London. French, Spanish and Italian banks also have a significant presence here.

 

Will they stay in the same numbers if their governments make it politically and/or fiscally disadvantageous to do so?

 

Former Labour City Minister and investment banker Lord Myners told the BBC that by "isolating" itself, Britain had forced London-based banks to face a dilemma.

 

"Do they continue to put all their resources behind supporting their activities in the City of London or do they begin to build up other centres of excellence elsewhere in Europe?" he asked.

 

"I think the balance has tilted quite strongly as a consequence of the petulance of the prime minister."

I highlighted the parts you are having a problem understanding. If you think that the opinion of "Lord" Myners counts for a pinch of sh !t, you should read a little of his background. He's a socialist peer, appointed by Gordon Brown, who thought the RBS board was distinguished and approved the use of public money to pay its ex-chairman, Sir Fred Goodwin, £693,000 each year, for the rest of his life. In other words, a clueless w@ nker, totally out of touch with what is sensible, with regard to the use of public money.

You obviously feel he's someone that speaks for you, though.

Clueless...

Wasn't originally too fussed about this, but it is starting to sound worse by the day. Essentially big decisions will be made that have a big effect on our economy and we won't be there to fight for it. Although the alternative wasn't exactly palatable either, ultimately we have been stitched up by Sarkozy and Merkell. People get the wrong idea about our membership to the EU, we aren't there to be ordered around by Brussels, we are there in order to negotiate and fight our corner. I wouldn't blame Cameron for this situation though, France and Germany forced us into a lose-lose situation, my only confusion is with the celebratory reaction to such a damaging situation.

France and Germany forced us into a lose-lose situation, my only confusion is with the celebratory reaction to such a damaging situation.

that's what you get from having a neophyte Prime Minister with no clear majority to rule.

The elder statesmen of Europe have seen jumped up idiots like Cameron before and know how to handle them.

At least Blair had some sort of standing in the political community.Cameron....well I guess he ranted and raved and said "well I'm off then" and the Franco-German couple said "Go ahead,make our day" to quote Inspector Harry.

I highlighted the parts you are having a problem understanding. If you think that the opinion of "Lord" Myners counts for a pinch of sh !t, you should read a little of his background. He's a socialist peer, appointed by Gordon Brown, who thought the RBS board was distinguished and approved the use of public money to pay its ex-chairman, Sir Fred Goodwin, £693,000 each year, for the rest of his life. In other words, a clueless w@ nker, totally out of touch with what is sensible, with regard to the use of public money.

 

You obviously feel he's someone that speaks for you, though.

 

Clueless...

And so begin the insults. I hear this is a favourite recourse of yours.

And so begin the insults. I hear this is a favourite recourse of yours.

Sorry. How was I to know you were Lord Myners?

Sorry. How was I to know you were Lord Myners?

Well now you know.

Well now you know.

Well, your Lordship, I think you are a clueless w@ nker for awarding Sir Fred Goodwin £695K per annum of public money and you and that other Socialist peer, Lord Prescott, should be hung from the nearest lampost as traitors to your class...

The fact the The City aren't jumping for joy speaks volumes and the silence of the CBI is deafening.

 

It appears to me, increasingly, that the UK government have been totally out maneuvered by the French & Germans.

 

I genuinely don't know what the answer is but we are still spending the same on the EU, are still governed by the same rules and regs but appear in a much weaker position and on the way to an "out" vote, which The City and business don't want.

The City are more than happy as the markets show, plus why should we have to bail out europe? like your last point though about the amount we contribute, this needs to be reduced. All we need is a free market, that is the one thing that really matters.

I am a very happy man at the moment because everything was going the EU way and the tide seems to be turning. Well done Mr DC.

Well, your Lordship, I think you are a clueless w@ nker for awarding Sir Fred Goodwin £695K per annum of public money and you and that other Socialist peer, Lord Prescott, should be hung from the nearest lampost as traitors to your class...

Yes, it's true - my time in the Lords has mostly been spent awarding my chums huge and unwarranted pay packages, while they scheme to bring down capitalism (which was rather the intention). I don't have much time for two-jags though, and I'm still right about Dave's Brussels cock-up.

You can quote me on that.

Ffs

on 8 june 2010, myners made headlines with a speech he made in the lords. He said, "we clearly need a policy of fiscal caution. It was right to support the economy during the global recession but there now needs to be fiscal adjustment, as evidenced by the last government in the fiscal responsibility act. There is nothing progressive about a government which consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation, and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred by the current generation without evidence of productive investment to match."^[14]

in march 2009 the sunday times revealed that lord myners had been chairman of aspen insurance holdings, a bermuda-based insurance company, for five years, avoiding more than £100 million a year in tax.

 

I wished you hadn't found that. It's a tad embarrassing.

Well, your Lordship, I think you are a clueless w@ nker for awarding Sir Fred Goodwin £695K per annum of public money and you and that other Socialist peer, Lord Prescott, should be hung from the nearest lampost as traitors to your class...

Not technically right there John. Myners and the Government of the day were obviously involved in dealings with RBS around the time of it being effectively "nationalised", but they weren't in there setting remuneration, nor were they responsible for the previously agreed Director's contracts (and the rather generous nature of them).

I personally would have liked them to take some people's advice (I think Cable was one of them) of holding back the payments and letting Goodwin sue them, but that's not the same as suggesting they were awarding the pay outs (plus I don't think they would have won in court and could only have hoped that Goodwin would be too embarrassed to contest it, although he seems not to give a shtit about anything apart from himself and probably would have fought it!!!!).

The Slade brothers were drinking in the Grapes in Southampton and were left on the quay, as the Titanic sailed for New York. The passengers waved to them, as the liner made its way down Southampton Water, mentioning to each other how they were so unfortunate to be left behind and would not be able to have a say, in how the deck chairs were going to be arranged on the deck.

The City are more than happy as the markets show, plus why should we have to bail out europe? like your last point though about the amount we contribute, this needs to be reduced. All we need is a free market, that is the one thing that really matters.

 

I am a very happy man at the moment because everything was going the EU way and the tide seems to be turning. Well done Mr DC.

No, they're not, they are unsure about what's going to happen in the middle to long term and the market rose on a Euro rescue, not the actions of HMG.

I travel and sit at Saints with a City boy and as he said, we won't know what the real outcome is until Germany/France make their move.

The Slade brothers were drinking in the Grapes in Southampton and were left on the quay, as the Titanic sailed for New York. The passengers waved to them, as the liner made its way down Southampton Water, mentioning to each other how they were so unfurtunate to be left behind and would not be able to have a say, in how the deck chairs were going to be arranged on the deck.

Well, your Lordship, I think you are a clueless w@ nker for awarding Sir Fred Goodwin £695K per annum of public money and you and that other Socialist peer, Lord Prescott, should be hung from the nearest lampost as traitors to your class...

Wasn't his contract agreed by the shareholders prior to his bank crashing down?

Not technically right there John. Myners and the Government of the day were obviously involved in dealings with RBS around the time of it being effectively "nationalised", but they weren't in there setting remuneration, nor were they responsible for the previously agreed Director's contracts (and the rather generous nature of them).

I'll stick to my opinion that he is a clueless w@ nker who signed off Goodwin's pension and MP's of both parties share this opinion as this FT article confirms.

MPs criticise Myners over Goodwin pension

By George Parker, Political Editor

Published: March 17 2009 15:57 | Last updated: March 17 2009 23:31

 

Lord Myners, City minister, was on Tuesday accused of being “bloody naive” after he admitted waving through Sir Fred Goodwin’s annual £700,000 Royal Bank of Scotland pension without asking how much it would cost or whether he was contractually entitled to it.

Under fierce questioning from MPs, Lord Myners blamed the controversy over Sir Fred’s £16m pension pot entirely on the former RBS board, whom he claimed were “in denial” over the scale of the disaster facing the bank.

 

Amid new outrage over news that the former RBS chief executive has already pocketed a £2.7m advance on his pension, Lord Myners insisted at the Commons treasury committee: “I don’t think I slipped up.”

Lord Myners had been a minister for a matter of days when RBS came to the brink of collapse last October, throwing him immediately into a frantic weekend of talks to save the banking system. The minister insisted that although he had been warned by Bob Scott, head of the bank’s remuneration committee, that Sir Fred was being lined up for a “enormous” pension payout, he did not ask how much it was worth or whether it had to be paid.

“I sought no information,” he said, arguing that he laid down the principle that there should be “no rewards for failure” and let the bank’s directors get on with sorting out the terms of the chief executive’s departure. Lord Myners claims he was “not told the full story” by the board, which he claims used its discretion to double Sir Fred’s pension pot by requesting that he retire at the age of 50 instead of 60.

At the time the government was preparing to become a majority shareholder in RBS through a recapitalisation programme which could – ultimately – give the taxpayer a 95 per cent economic stake.

Lord Myners said the bank should have kept his pension entitlement to a minimum by sacking him, on the grounds that the boss of a bank heading for losses of £30bn was unlikely to command the ongoing support of shareholders.

But MPs were astonished that Lord Myners did not ask more questions. The bank even suggested releasing details of the payout “over a couple of years” to limit the public outcry.

George Mudie, a Labour member of the committee, said Lord Myners had been “bloody naive” to trust the judgment of board members who had presided over the bank’s decline. Lord Myners described the board members as “distinguished”, although he later apologised for using the term, preferring instead to call them “experienced”.

Michael Fallon, a Conservative member, said Lord Myners had either failed in his duty to the taxpayer or had been party to a “very expensive piece of backscratching” by the board of the bank to its former chief executive.

Andrew Tyrie, Conservative, tried to persuade Lord Myners to disclose details of his own pension arrangements, claiming that as a wealthy former banker himself he would have been less sensitive to lavish pension payouts.

Lord Myners admitted he felt a sense of “admiration” – but not in a positive sense – about Sir Fred’s ability to wring such a generous pension out of the bank.

The former bank chief even persuaded RBS to pay the tax on his £2.7m advance pension payout, although Lord Myners said negotiations were continuing to persuade Sir Fred to pay the money back into his pension pot.

Lord Myners claimed some bank directors were “bending over backwards to be generous” to Sir Fred.

He said that at one point in the negotiations last October the whole board had threatened to resign in protest at the “outrageous treatment” of Sir Tom McKillop, the bank’s chairman, who was also ousted.

The government continues to take legal advice about recouping some of the pension from Sir Fred.

In the meantime, Lord Myners suggested the former bank boss should give some of his money and entrepreneurial energy to charity.

Wasn't his contract agreed by the shareholders prior to his bank crashing down?

Of course it was, but that wouldn't have suited John's earlier tub thumping rant!!!!!

Tearing up his contract would have been akin to a Banana Republic renationalising foreign assets & assuming state control and would not have been acceptable (despite many people's faux anger in the City and in Westminster).

The FSA were found wanting, Brown and co. ccked up on many issues, but that's like moaning about the police and forgetting that the crooks are the real problem out there.

(not that the Police shouldn't be taken to task if they are incompetent, but we shouldn't lose sight of the crooked actions of the financial sector and that they were the main cause of the meltdown in the first place).

65% of the public back his decision, red ed still saying it was a mistake? ..he really knows how to shoot himself in the foot doesnt he

Of course it was, but that wouldn't have suited John's earlier tub thumping rant!!!!!