Heffer's law: executive pay

Perhaps the clearest sign yet that shareholder oversight alone is not enough to rein in executive pay - Simon Heffer thinks it is:

And it is hard to disagree with him about the inflated salaries paid to senior executives and city financiers that are in some cases no way proportionate to the risks they take or the money they earn for their companies.

Yet would this problem be solved by putting a worker on the remuneration committee of every company? Of course not.

The people who would be most useful in keeping pay down, and who have both a legal and a moral right already to do so, are that company’s shareholders. It is the value they hold in the company that is destroyed if executives are overpaid, and it is in their interests to see that it doesn’t happen.

Heffer's Law

Definitely in action here:

Finally, it was not the banks that brought down our economy: it was the last Government's refusal to regulate them properly, and to moderate the supply of cheap money that allowed them to lend so much so recklessly.

Banks, you see, are a force of nature and cannot be expected to reach optimal decisions about risk-taking on their own. Therefore any mistakes they make are directly attributable to those who fail to stop them.

Heffer's Law

I suspect it is in operation again, this time on the 50% rate.

Heffer's Law

This is hands down the most 'political' and most stupid thing I have seen written about the dissident republican attacks in Norn Iron.

It is, as usual, the British Government with blood on its hands following the deaths of these three brave men.

Pardon my French, but what a knob jockey.

Heffer's Law holds

From today's Telegraph:

So it should be clear what the Tories have to promise to do should they win the next election... They especially have to promise to scrap the spiteful and iniquitous 45 per cent tax band for those earning more than £150,000 a year, and which will raise a derisorily small amount of revenue.

And from todays YouGov poll commissioned by the... err... Telegraph:

The poll found that 60% of the public supported Chancellor Alistair Darling's announcement of a temporary cut in VAT and 72% welcomed his new higher-rate tax band for the wealthy.

Why bank nationalisation isn't radical

Because Simon Heffer says it is. I suspect Heffer's Law is at play again.

One reason the Democrats should be less worried about Palin

Simon Heffer is talking her up. There are some political commentators on the Right I can take seriously. But I've noticed over the years that Simon Heffer's political judgment is unerringly awful. Last year he was sticking the boot into Cameron as not up to the job and saying the Tories had massively underestimated Brown. I should have known at the time we were in trouble. If I remember right he also predicted that UKIP would make a big impact in the 2005 election. So there's a sort of Heffer's Law at work - his endorsement is the kiss of death.

I think the jury is still out on Palin, much as excitable Rightie bloggers would have us believe that her speech has somehow tranformed American politics. Remember what they said about David Davis (and no prizes for guessing what Simon Heffer's view was on that revolution of a campaign that has already caused the history books to be rewritten). She might be sassy and attractive, but she's also inexperienced and on the harder edge of the Republican party. As VP she would be one heart attack away from having her finger on the button, a thought that must strike many US voters and that I think will ultimately play against her.

Let's see if Heffer's Law is in operation again.

A tale of two Telegraphs

Interesting that there are two radically different views expressed in the Telegraph today on the taxation of private equity. For once I find myself agreeing with Alan Sugar Mini-Me Jeff Randall. See his piece here. Just in case you haven't been convinced of the case for changing the taxation paid by private equity partners, Simon Heffer's piece here should convince you.

Ignore the fact that it trots out all the usual, and weakest, arguments for the status quo (we mustn't interfere with the wealth of these genius businessmen or they will take their ball home with them and, yea, we shall all suffer). My point is that that his political judgment is so bad that you can get a pretty good feel for the direction an issue is heading by finding out the position Simon Heffer is adopting and looking for the complete opposite point of view. Put simply, if Heffer is defending the tax regime then Buffini and crew can as good as kiss it goodbye.