The news right now is debating the question of the bonus announced for the chief executive of RBS, Stephen Hester. Just under £1 million. BBC News - RBS chief Stephen Hester's £963,000 bonus criticised BBC News - Treasury feared Hester and board would quit It would appear the board threatened to resign if they did not get their bonuses. I have seen one report which says Hester's was reduced from 1.5 to 1 million. In March the bbc reported he would get £9 million worth of shares as a bonus during his agreed period in charge. So far the share value has fallen 1/3, eroding the potential value of his bonus, but I guess since the share price is above zero he must have done something to deserve a bonus? If the share price crawls back to where it was before he took over, his payout will be worth a lot more. One lib dem minister has come out and said Hester should refuse his bonus. His contract entitles the government to refuse to pay one. Another minister argued that the contract lists what he is expected to do to qualify for a bonus and although the share price has fallen rather than risen, he has accomplished other things like reducing the banks exposure to risk. Someone else suggested this ought to be an ordinary part of his job for which he is paid his ordinary salary of £1.2 million. Is it expected that for a paltry sum like that he would do no more than run the bank into the ground? The british government is telling everyone else they must accept lower wages. This man gets a bonus big enough to set up most people for life for doing no more than he was employed to do. Why does this deserve any kind of bonus? Time to stop giving in to bank blackmail?