Clegg can bank on this policy going down well

Pablo Hugo

...or is it just another case of politicians riding a bandwagon. There is already a perfectly good mechanism for regulating the future employment of failed professionals - the refusal of would-be employers to take on proven failures. I don't see that politician should attempt to become involved.

It's only really the public sector which persists in rewarding failure in terms of future employment prospects. I work in education and have seen no end of failed Headteachers eased into a nice job in the Local Authority; one such person achieved very poor results for his school and went on to be responsible for standards in a neighbouring authority.

So, the public sector has a long way to go before it can lecture the private sector on how failure should be treated. Look at Gordon Brown!

Chris lancashire

No, not clever politics.
There are clear existing rules for the disqualification of Directors. If they apply then they should be applied. Making up laws to exact vengeance is not good politics.
Lastly, it would help enormously if the present government stopped employing (or hadn't previously employed)these people - Myners,Goodwin, ....

Ken

He doesn't go far enough. These same directors should be subjected to a criminal investigation as some of their American counterparts now are. There are matters of corporate governance and fiduciary responsibility that need forensic examination. If the UK jurisdiction is regarded as too conservative on the latter, the banks and their boards, because they were global, might well be pursued in US or Canadian jurisdictions where there is a more expansive view of fiduciary obligation. The issue is this: these people, at the instigation of obscene political leaders, have destroyed the global financial system. We are now all to pay for this debacle for generations to come. The politicians and their banker allies are proving more destructive than Hitler ever was.

John Adlington

It's not just at all. It's an underhand, cowardly way of labelling them all as fraudsters which they weren't, they were just over-ambitious and greedy which last time I looked wasn't a crime. Clegg is as bad as a '30s German baiting jews just to look patriotic and macho.

J_London

I agree this could be a good political move, but a couple of questions arise from the slightly arbitrary nature of the proposal;

i) What about those who were directors in the run up to the fiscal chaos, but had left the board pre nationalisation / government involvement?

ii) If there are good directors in the group above, are we happy that they are 'convicted' alongside the bad?

oldtimer

If you go down this route, what about the politicians? Brown and co are also culpable for presiding over the current catastrophe; as are some public officials.

But I remember now. In our Animal Farm world some animals (MPs) are more equal than others (the rest of us). So they have nothing to worry about.

I do not agree with you that it is clever politics - it is mob politics. And politicians who promote this line of thinking should think more carefully before they blurt out populist ideas.

I hold no brief for failed bankers - they have cost both my wife and myself several thousands of pounds - but I do hold a brief for the rule of law. There are, literally, hundreds of Acts of Parliament that apply to directors of public companies. What is needed is an examination of the adequacy of those many Acts in the present circumstances. What Clegg has done is jump to a conclusion.

Pandora Thompson

I absolutely agree with Nick Clegg and wondered when someone would start looking at the who as well as the how and the why of how the banks got into this pickle. It is clear to all that the banks were not being properly managed and that their business models were not prudently devised or operated. The rules by which company directors are bound should be seen to be binding to them. The directors of a failed company should be investigated, as they are in normal company law, and, if found wanting, should be barred from holding directoral office, as per the existing laws.

In addition, parliament should also look at why such runaway imprudence, what a term!, should have overtaken what most people have thought of as rock solid companies.

There is an imbalance in the way the Companies Act apportions roles and responsibilities in particular in the role and responsibilities of the Chairman of a company. At the moment the primary concern for any Chairman of a company is the shareholders. This has skewed business behaviour and put companies at the mercy of organisational investors as well as setting them on the acquisition trail in order to maintain the bottom line.

The acquisitive behaviour of Fred the Shred, and unbalanced business model of Mr Applegarth would not have happened had the primary concern of the Chairman been for the longevity and vitality of the company rather than shareholder value.

So, amend the Companies Act to make the Chairman responsible for the longevity and vitality of the company rather than looking after only one group of stakeholders - the shareholders - and the antics and approved activities of the HBOS gang and RBS rabble together with the Northern Rockettes, would probably never have happened.

What say you to this mini-proposal which could bring back good companies who deliver to customers?

Mike, Brighton

Not clever politics at all. These directors have broken no law. Again it is being proposed that a law be drafted to attack a very small number of men because we don't like them. Its a more sophisticated version of Hattie's intervention.

James - do you really think it OK to disbar businessmen from becoming directors because we don't like them or think them incompetent? It's like disbarring barmen because of alcoholism.
Is Brown to be disbarred as a politician because of his manifest incompetence?

Rex Burr

The mechanism for regulating the future employment of failed professionals will always be subverted by the ‘old boys network’. It will always ensure that they get to keep their nose in the trough.
These people, whether in the public and private sector, feel it their right take what they want from business and industry without justification.

Tiberius

I agree, Mike B, that this is an extension of Harridan's case.

Perhaps we should form a posse to chase down these bankers, and string 'em up in the good old fashioned way. It would mostly satisfy the members of the court of public opinion.

George Laird

Dear James

You say that Clegg's proposal is "just and populist".

If it was "just" as you suggest then every director of a failed business would be have to be barred from holding a directorship.

It is quite wrong to use the law to target an individual.

Bad judgement or stupidity isn't a crime but perhaps a more popular solution would be to introduce a banking act that requires a banking degree before a person can be a director in a major financial institution.

This would stop the friends of friend’s culture filling up boardrooms.

Britain is a corrupt society were at the top there are social networks a small clique move from one high paid job to another.

Rather like a Cartel.

For example, in Scotland, if you are not a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the chances of you obtaining a senior position in higher education are almost zero.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

cuffleyburgers

Very good point Ken.