28 February 2009

Fred Goodwin

They say it is against the law for the government to stop paying massive CEO pensions. But couldn't they just change the law? - they seem to overide the law on other things when it suits. It certainly would be interesting to see how Cameron and his hedge fund friends in the Tory party voted on such a law change. We would see how 'man of the people' Cameron was then.

5 comments:

  1. Are you saying that it would be a good idea to bring in a law to overturn Goodwins contract?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Then you are bonkers. That the man doesn't deserve the money is no where near as important as maintaining the rule of law.

    Creating laws that target individuals, let alone retro-actively is a fundamentally bad idea. Today its Goodwin, who gets it in the neck tomorrow? Why pay any attention to contracts when you can get the government to overturn them on a whim?

    Goodwin may be a schmuck, he may be getting a reward that he doesn't deserve but it is vitally important that the government does not legislate his pension away.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Then you are bonkers. That the man doesn't deserve the money is no where near as important as maintaining the rule of law

    If you change the law then you are upholding the rule of law.

    Creating laws that target individuals, let alone retro-actively is a fundamentally bad idea. Today its Goodwin, who gets it in the neck tomorrow?

    The poor. Except they are already getting in the neck and no one seems to give a damn about them. The state doesn't appear to have any problems whatsoever in targetting individuals if they aren't bankers. The idea that if we went after Goodwin we'd be on a slippery slope is laughable. The question is rather why should the bankers be treated differently?

    Why pay any attention to contracts when you can get the government to overturn them on a whim?

    Ask Sharon Shoesmith. But she worked in the public sector so no one gives a flying fuck about her contract.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If you change the law then you are upholding the rule of law"

    Bollocks. The rule of law is not advanced by retroactive legislation.

    The poor have difficulties but I don't recall anyone attempting to legislate against them restrospectively. Thats the issue here, the state of the poor in society is a different and very long discussion.

    "Ask Sharon Shoesmith. But she worked in the public sector so no one gives a flying fuck about her contract."

    I assume you mean the Sharon Shoesmith who is taking her employers to a tribunal? The law has a mechanism for her to seek redress. If you change the law retrospectively, framing the law for the specific purpose of taking someone down, then there is no possible defence.

    ReplyDelete