The Chancellor makes a habit of clumsy speeches. In the great tradition of telling the banks they had been badly run and would not be bailed out just a few days before he guaranteed the deposits of any bank in trouble, yesterday he popped up again and says the City is paying people too much for poor performance. He would like to see their pay cut.
For once I will agree with him. I think if someone presided over a large organisation which lost all the personal details of half its customers, the boss’s pay should be cut. If someone presided over the first bank run in more than a hundred years, their pay should be cut. If someone rushed out press threats to tax Non Doms more, only to have to withdraw some of the proposals because they were too damaging, his pay should be reduced. If someone decided to increase capital gains tax by 80% for entrepreneurs, and then had to climb down on part of that proposal, we should look at how much they were being paid.
Can anyone think of someone on high pay who might fall into any of these categories? And what should happen to the pay of someone in the unlikely event that they managed to do all four? Should he be paying us to carry on in the job?