Just looking for an explanation: if an older person has to move into a care home and the state subsidises them so that they can keep a house that they no longer need, is that not a state subsidy of an someone else's inheritance? Or a subsidy to keep houses empty? (I do accept the logic, both social and economic, for someone who has the possibility of moving back out of the care home.)
Good for him. That is what i call real commitment to damage limitation and protecting the brand of your employer.
One of the most difficult things to do in business is to create incentive schemes. There are always unintended consequences as the incentivised learn ways to game the system. We almost all think that profit is a good idea - both for our own portfolios and as a measure of how well a business is doing. But when profit is the main or only determiner of employee reward, do not be surprised if profit is sought by any means necessary.
The real question one asks oneself is: how did the market come to rely so heavily and pin so many financial outcomes on self-report data? Was it that we thought a banker 's word is his bond or was it just that we were unable (or unwilling or too lazy) to demand hard data?
"The Prime Minister has previously opposed such cuts because he promised during the 2010 election campaign that a Conservative government would retain them."
Yeah, but it was only a promise to old f@rts, so who cares. Besides, we oldies have outlived our usefulness, so if you can starve or freeze us, we'll be gone sooner. ...and TV just rots our brains anyway. Do keep the bus passes though, without the fuel allowance, public transport is the only warm place left to sleep.
Of course, that kind of deprivation is unknown to the filthy rich amongst us (those making 11 thousand a year) who can just stay at the Ritz whenever it gets cold.
Still, he is right, we old fogies should bear some of the pain. I've got it: how about we take a cut of the same percentage of our income as parliament plans to drop their own salaries by. Would that be fair?
Either he knew - and should be fired for allowing it to continue or he didn't know - and should be fired for lack of control. Either way, pay him what he is owed under his contract, unless you want to continue the image of Barclays as a bunch of cheaters.
PS: the 30 million figure is made up out of whole cloth to get a nice headline. As they say in the movies: any resemblance between this number the real payout is purely coincidental
"The EU has to date disposed of two democratically elected nation state Prime Ministers, replacing them with two unelected Brussels’ placemen, ignores voters wishes, (as seen from the Irish referendum) and threatened Greece with expulsion..."So, not all bad then.
You've heard of "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells"? Well, I live in Holland Park and I've Had It. Up to here! An old curmudgeon, I rant and rave about things I read, see or hear in the News. Frequently sarcastic, irreverent and libertarian; often wrong - but never uncertain.