Hester: RBS "will be ready to sell by 2015"

Huge losses, bonus caps, and too much government interference.

RBS posted a huge loss today - a pre-tax loss of £5.17bn.

Operating profits were in fact up: £3.46bn in 2012, up from £1.82bn the previous year, the highest since its bail-out in 2008 - but charges from 2012's smorgasboard of scandals brought that right down.

The news came just as EU officials agreed to put a cap on bankers bonuses as early as next year - bad news all round for RBS.

Speaking on the Today programme this morning, RBS boss Stephen Hester said that bankers pay "needs to be in line with contribution."

He said: "I don't think bankers should be treated as special creatures."

"The most important thing for business certainty is a level playing field... As we know the financial crisis was a period of excess in many areas...that's what we're cleaning up for now."

The clean-up is not RBS's only problem though. As the government has a large stake in it you get the impression RBS isn't quite sure what its  priorities should be: should it play to the commercial interests of its minority share-holders, or invest in small businesses, as the government is pressing it to do? There seems to be a lack of communication between government and bank, and in the BBC interview today Hester was clearly champing at the bit for a sell-off.

"We are doing everything we can to facilitate a sale", he said. "I think that RBS will be ready to be privatised in the next couple years. It will be ready to sell by 2015".

"Privatisation is coming further into the agenda of the government and we welcome that."

It will be up to the government to decide the date of the sell-off though - likely to be another point of contention between government and bank.

 

RBS posted a huge loss today Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Jeremy Corbyn delivers a speech on the arts in north London on September 1, 2015. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Can Labour MPs force Corbyn to bring back shadow cabinet elections?

It is not up to the parliamentary party whether the contests are reintroduced. 

Soon after Jeremy Corbyn became the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest, it was reported that he intended to bring back shadow cabinet elections. But as I later wrote, that's not the case. Corbyn has resolved that he will maintain the right to appoint his own team, rather than having it elected by MPs (as was the case before Ed Miliband changed the system in 2011). As he wrote in the NS: "Whoever emerges as leader on 12 September needs a shadow cabinet in place as soon as possible. I will appoint a strong, diverse shadow cabinet to hold this government to account from day one."

Now, ahead of his likely victory a week on Saturday, Corbyn is under pressure from some MPs to reverse his stance. Barry Sheerman, the former education select commitee chair, told me that he wanted a "serious discussion" within the PLP about the return of the elections. While some support their reinstatement on principled grounds, others recognise that there is a tactical advantage in Corbyn's opponents winning a mandate from MPs. His hand would be further weakened (he has the declared support of just 14 of his Commons colleagues). 

But their reinstatement is not as simple as some suggest. One senior MP told me that those demanding their return "had not read the rule book". Miliband's decision to scrap the elections was subsequently approved at party conference meaning that only this body can revive them. A simple majority of MPs is not enough. 

With Corbyn planning to have a new team in place as soon as possible after his election, there is little prospect of him proposing such upheaval at this point. Meanwhile, Chuka Umunna has attracted much attention by refusing to rule out joining the left-winger's shadow cabinet if he changes his stances on nuclear disarmament, Nato, the EU and taxation (a lengthy list). Umunna is unlikely to remain on the frontbench but having previously pledged not to serve, he now recognises that there is value in being seen to at least engage with Corbyn. Were he to simply adopt a stance of aggression, he would risk being blamed if the backbencher failed. It is one example of how the party's modernisers recognise they need to play a smarter game. I explore this subject further in my column in tomorrow's NS

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.