Labour pins Osborne down on bank bonuses

The party challenges the Chancellor to veto any move by RBS to double the bank bonus cap under new EU rules.

It's bonus season again in the City and Labour has spied another opportunity to inflict embarrassment on the coalition. Under new rules passed by the EU, bonuses must be no larger than bankers' basic salaries. But a loophole means that they can be up to twice as large provided that banks win shareholder approval. In the case of RBS, which is still 81%-owned by the taxpayer, that means the government. 

While the new EU cap, which George Osborne is challenging through the European court, won't apply until next year's bonus round, Labour is demanding that the Chancellor pre-emptively vow to block any request by RBS to exploit the loophole. Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie, who has tabled a Commons motion on the subject for today, said last night: "At a time when families face a cost-of-living crisis and bank lending to business is falling, it cannot be right for George Osborne to approve a doubling of the bank bonus cap. It shouldn’t have taken the EU to act to rein in excessive bonuses, but there has been no action from the Chancellor here in Britain.

"As the majority shareholder, the government should reject any request from RBS to increase the cap. We will put this to a vote in the House of Commons as part of our opposition day debate on the Government’s wider failures on banking. The case for repeating Labour’s tax on bank bonuses, to fund a compulsory jobs programme for young people, is getting stronger by the day."

Here's the full text of Labour's Opposition Day motion: "That this House believes that Government reforms have failed to deliver a competitive banking system which serves the interests of consumers or the needs of businesses and the British economy; is concerned that customers have limited choice and low levels of trust and confidence in the banking market; is disappointed that recent legislation has fallen short of the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking which called for action to diversify the sector and ensure that major new banking service providers are created; believes that banker remuneration remains unacceptably high and regrets the fact that it has taken the EU to act to rein in excessive bonuses in Britain in the absence of domestic action but believes the government as a majority shareholder in RBS should not approve any request to increase the cap; and calls on Ministers to prevent a return to business-as-usual in the banking sector which continues to require real reform and competition so that the UK can earn its way out of the cost-of-living crisis."

The official line from RBS is that "no decisions have been made" but the likelihood is that chief executive Ross McEwan, who believes high levels of remuneration are vital to maintain the bank's competitiveness, will seek the highest bonuses possible at RBS's annual meeting later this year. In response, the Treasury said: "Our normal principles apply. There needs to be restraint. Bonuses need to be significantly down on where they were at the time of the crisis and in the last parliament."

But this only prompts the question of why Osborne is resisting any official cap on bonuses. The answer from ministers is that as Andrew Bailey, the head of the Prudential Regulation Authority, has said, any limit will "just increase base pay, reduce claw back and undermine financial stability". But Labour will no doubt remind Osborne of his declaration back in 2009 that "It is totally unacceptable for bank bonuses to be paid on the back of taxpayer guarantees. It must stop." The Chancellor's volte-face has handed the party another chance to accuse him of "standing up for the wrong people. 

Meanwhile, as Newsnight reported last night, Ed Miliband is preparing to announce new proposals for banking reform in his speech on the economy on Friday. While Labour sources are distancing themselves from the idea of a 25% cap on market share, Miliband's intent is to end the dominance of the "big five" (RBS, Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and Santander) and to make it easier for smaller players to enter the market, potentially by forcing larger banks to sell some of their branches. It's a good example of what the Labour leader meant when he spoke in his New Year message of the need to make "big changes in our economy". The aim is to show that he has a plan to deliver a permanent improvement in living standards, rather than merely a temporary one, (by improving lending to small businesses) and an answer to the "too big to fail" problem. 

On the Today programmme this morning, Chris Leslie spoke of how bank customers feel "there is no point in switching" because "they're all the same" and denounced the government for "consistently falling short of rising to the challenge of what needs to be done". He also described the "high rolling bonus culture" as part of "the old economic construct", a sign of how shadow ministers are now echoing Miliband's long-standing call for a transformed capitalism. 

George Osborne speaks at the Conservative conference in Manchester last year. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

As long as Jeremy Corbyn's Labour opponents are divided, he will rule

The leader's foes have yet to agree on when and how a challenge should take place.

Labour MPs began plotting to remove Jeremy Corbyn as leader before he even held the position. They have not stopped since. From the outset, most regarded him as electorally and morally defective. Nothing has caused them to relinquish this view.

A week before the first major elections of this parliament, Labour found itself conducting a debate normally confined to far-right internet forums: was Hitler a Zionist? For some MPs, the distress lay in how unsurprised they were by all this. Since Corbyn’s election last September, the party has become a mainstream venue for hitherto fringe discussions.

Many MPs believe that Labour will be incapable of rebuilding its standing among the Jewish community as long as Corbyn remains leader. In the 1930s, Jewish support for the party was as high as 80 per cent. “They handed you your . . . membership just after your circumcision,” quipped the father in the 1976 television play Bar Mitzvah Boy. By the time of the last general election, a poll found that support had fallen to a mere 22 per cent. It now stands at just 8.5 per cent.

Corbyn’s critics cite his typical rejection of anti-Semitism and "all forms of racism" (as if unable to condemn the former in isolation), his defence of a tweet sent by his brother, Piers (“Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine”), and his description of Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”. The Lab­our leader dismissed the latter remark as a diplomatic nicety but such courtesy was not displayed when he addressed Labour Friends of Israel and failed to mention the country’s name. When challenged on his record of combating anti-Semitism, Corbyn frequently invokes his parents’ presence at the Battle of Cable Street, a reference that does not provide the reassurance intended. The Jewish community does not doubt that Labour has stood with it in the past. It questions whether it is prepared to stand with it in the present.

MPs say that Labour’s inept response to anti-Semitism has strengthened the moral case for challenging Corbyn. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of how the fear of “enormous reputational damage” had pushed him to the brink of resignation. As the New Statesman went to press, Corbyn’s first electoral test was looming. Every forecast showed the party on course to become the first opposition to lose council seats in a non-general-election year since 1985. Yet Corbyn appeared to insist on 3 May that this would not happen, gifting his opponents a benchmark by which to judge him.

Sadiq Khan was projected to become the party’s first successful London mayoral candidate since 2004. But having distanced himself from Corbyn throughout the race, he intends to deny him any credit if he wins. Regardless of the results on 5 May, there will be no challenge to the Labour leader before the EU referendum on 23 June. Many of the party’s most Corbyn-phobic MPs are also among its most Europhile. No cause, they stress, should distract from the defence of the UK’s 43-year EU membership.

Whether Corbyn should be challenged in the four weeks between the referendum and the summer recess is a matter of dispute among even his most committed opponents. Some contend that MPs have nothing to lose from trying and should be prepared to “grind him down” through multiple attempts, if necessary. Others fear that he would be empowered by winning a larger mandate than he did last September and argue that he must be given “longer to fail”. Still more hope that Corbyn will instigate a midterm handover to the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, his closest ally, whom they regard as a beatable opponent.

Those who are familiar with members’ thinking describe many as “anxious” and in need of “reassurance” but determined that Corbyn receives adequate time to “set out his stall”. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of being “caught between Scylla and Charybdis” – that is, “a Labour Party membership which is ardently Corbynista and a British electorate which is ardently anti-Corbynista”. In their most pessimistic moments, some MPs gloomily wonder which group will deselect them first. The possibility that a new Conservative leader could trigger an early general election is cited by some as cause for haste and by others as the only means by which Corbynism can be definitively discredited.

The enduring debate over whether the Labour leader would automatically make the ballot if challenged (the party’s rules are ambiguous) is dismissed by most as irrelevant. Shadow cabinet members believe that Corbyn would achieve the requisite nominations. Momentum, the Labour leader’s praetorian guard, has privately instructed its members to be prepared to lobby MPs for this purpose.

There is no agreement on who should face Corbyn if his removal is attempted. The veteran MP Margaret Hodge has been touted as a “stalking horse” to lead the charge before making way for a figure such as the former paratrooper Dan Jarvis or the shadow business secretary, Angela Eagle. But in the view of a large number of shadow cabinet members, no challenge will materialise. They cite the high bar for putative leaders – the endorsement of 20 per cent of Labour MPs and MEPs – and the likelihood of failure. Many have long regarded mass front-bench resignations and trade union support as ­essential preconditions for a successful challenge, conditions they believe will not be met less than a year after Corbyn’s victory.

When Tony Blair resigned as Labour leader in 2007, he had already agreed not to fight the next general election and faced a pre-eminent rival in Gordon Brown. Neither situation exists today. The last Labour leader to be constitutionally deposed was J R Clynes in 1922 – when MPs, not members, were sovereign. Politics past and present militate against Corbyn’s opponents. There is but one man who can remove the leader: himself.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 06 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The longest hatred