Equation for bankers' bonuses doesn't add up

This will be a shorter than usual blog entry. This is because this is a much simpler subject than normal, although I have to admit to being a little confused by the various arguments about bankers' bonuses.

If the various employment contracts of the people involved says that under conditions, X, Y and Z, then a bonus payment of M is due, then to withold this payment would appear to be a breach of contract. It's about as simple as it comes. It's one thing to argue about the formulation of bonus calculations for future years, to take into account whatever protective measures would seem sensible. Quite another to repudiate agreements already made.

However if the payments are discretionary, as some accounts seem to suggest, then why on earth even contemplate paying them? You'd think someone high up in the banking industry would have the sense to say "Look chaps, we need all the PR help we can get. Let's not pay discretionary bonuses while we're still mostly owned by the Taxpayer."

The fact that this hasn't happened only confirms how arrogant and/or out of touch with reality and common decency the banking industry really is. This shouldn't come as a surprise. This is the same industry that's been stealing from consumers for years with unlawful bank charges and PPI misselling.

Don't even get me started on how Labour have tried to dress this all up as a failure of leadership from Cameron and Osbourne. Basically that boils down to criticism that the Government didn't break a promise that Labour made. Someone needs to tell Labour that there's more to Opposition than hypocrisy and name-calling.

The banks say that they don't have a choice about bonus payments; that they are worried about their best employees going elsewhere, and this is the part that really confuses me.

If all the "best" and "talented" people are still with these banks, then who caused all this mess in the first place? And why aren't these "talented" people doing something about it?