"You can't be serious?"

The talk of the government or its crony, the FSA, arbitrarily intervening to re-write employment contracts of banks by changing the payment conditions, is probably politicing.

Nothing much will happen until after the election in any case, especially if bankers and banks decide to challenge through the courts. I suspect that this is either a vote-raising gesture, or more likely part of a piece trying to persuade the public that it is the evil banks, and the rest of the world, who are responsible for the G.Brown's debacle in the UK economy. In other words a blame-deflecting process is in hand here.

The policy is so asinine and dubious that it is difficult to believe that it is truly meant.

It is stupid for all sorts of reasons, but mainly because it lacks objectivity and rationality. What is the "fair" level of bonus/salary for a greedy banker who is a member of a team, and success a group effort. It is irrational because it cannot be determined what is appropriate - merely a number plucked out of the air. It is stupid because banks are quite capable of finding ways round this, - forbidden bonus partly covered by fictitious promotion, all found travel to overseas branches at leisure, share options, etc. etc. Would we have more agency or self-employed people in banks?

It is worrying. We have had incomes policies before, with maximum percentage increases for everyone, but this is a single person incomes policy. Legally it can't be done retrospectively, to interfere with a legal contract made between consenting adults. It is doubtful how the government can interfere even in new contracts, without all sorts of distortions. The interference would be by the FSA, who are answerable to no-one.

We would have Boris sounding off, about the City and British financial expertise draining away abroad, and one of our few world-leading industries in ruins. Do we want this (draining away)?

By all means let's do away with all bonuses - in the BBC, where there is no competition but a virtual monopoly, and in the civil service, in both cases where bonuses are paid regardless of performance. Or am I right, it's the beastly bankers who are the ideal scapegoat who can get the public off the government's bank and buy the government's narrative?