Luke Bozier, the Tories’ most recent recruit from the Labour Twitterverse, has this to say this morning on the RBS row:
It’s counterintuitive to weaken the RBS leadership. It makes sense that they have the best possible people making it viable again.
It does make me wonder where Luke’s moral compass lies – if, indeed, it lies anywhere. Requiring someone to tighten their multimillion-pound belt in hard times such as these, when others are losing their entire livelihoods as a result of the mess the previous regime and CEO left behind them, is surely not weakening the current leadership but, rather, giving it the opportunity to show how intellectually coherent it jolly well can be.
As well as socially sensitive – and relevant to boot.
I am minded, as a reminder of exactly where we find ourselves, to dig up a tweet of my own from yesterday. This was where I wondered the following:
Is there an #economicmodel which indicates exactly when you pass from needing less to work harder to needing more to work harder? #justaskin
Perhaps Luke can explain when this happens? And precisely why we should be so unambitious as to go along with its consequences?
Further reading: according to Wikipedia, Hester joined RBS in 2008. In 2009, under the aforementioned leadership (in this case, the RBS board), this happened:
In November 2008 he left British Land and on 21 November 2008 replaced Sir Fred Goodwin as Chief Executive of the RBS Group. Hester is paid an annual salary of £1.2 million by RBS. Alongside this, he took home £7.7m in bonus and pension payments 
In December, 2009, the board of RBS, in which the United Kingdom government has an 84% stake, threatened to resign unless they were permitted to pay bonuses of £1.5bn to staff in its investment arm. The matter received heavy criticism because it followed a £850bn taxpayer bailout of the banking sector. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, said he would not be “held to ransom”.
Ring any bells Luke? Weave any patterns? Examples of what you might term the kind of behaviours we would wish strong leadership in Britain to acquire?
If you ask me, and you don’t have to, this company – as well as its wider sector – has a history of doing just what it wants. But, in my opinion, that’s not a sign of strength.
Rather, it’s the sign of a bully.