This Is Where It's Going People.

[Harry Sacks]

Climate-change boss gets £50,000 bonus as carbon emissions soar

By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor

(Filed: 14/08/2005)

The head of the Government's climate-change quango has been awarded a £50,000 bonus despite Britain's greenhouse gas emissions soaring for the third year running.

Tom Delay, the chief executive of the Carbon Trust, has been awarded the sum on top of his £138,000-a-year salary. The bonus is equivalent to a pay increase of 36 per cent.

Tom Delay received a £50k bonus

The Carbon Trust urges business to cut emissions and has recently been pressing companies to do more. It claimed in its annual report that it had had a "successful year" because it cut businesses' costs by £200 million by getting them to save 2.7 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2004/5.

However, there were claims yesterday that taxpayers' money was being wasted because overall figures on Britain's greenhouse gas emissions were getting worse not better. The Liberal Democrats described the bonuses as "excessive".

Carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise significantly in 2005 and reach the highest level since 1992, when Britain signed the Climate Change Convention at the Rio Earth Summit and pledged to combat global warming.

Mr Delay is yet another of the Government's high-profile appointments from McKinsey, the consulting company.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs admitted that it funds the trust and set it up, but a spokesman said that because it was an "independent company" its pay issues were not a matter for the Government.

Created in April 2001, its "independent" status means it has a large measure of freedom in setting pay scales and bonuses as long as these are within frameworks decided by Whitehall.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment, said: "The Carbon Trust does a lot of good work. However this bonus seems excessive given that UK carbon emissions have continued to rise."

Energy statistics released by the Department of Trade and Industry this month show that oil and coal burning have both risen in the first five months of this year compared with the same period in 2004.

As a result, carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise by more than two per cent this year, when they should be falling by at least one per cent a year to reach Labour's 20 per cent reduction target.

In May's election manifesto the Government firmed up its pledge to cut carbon dioxide levels by 20 per cent on 1990 levels by 2010, despite the fact that ministers had conceded that with current measures Britain was not going to reach its targets. A review of policies due to be published in June is now expected later this year.

A trust spokesman said that it had carried out more than 4,000 visits to companies to help to increase their energy efficiency and provided more than £5 million in interest-free loans to help to make energy saving investments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../14/ixhome.html

[deano]

This is why pay should be legally required to relate 1st to performance and also to the lowest pay in the company. The 1st is obvious. The 2nd is because it stops a CEO increasing his income by reducing that of the workforce, also the workforce would have a financial incentive to make the company succeed. This has been done in Japan and it obviously worked.

I suspect in the case of Gormet Gate that they engineered the dispute not the unions. They probably thought they could sack the employees and employ new at minimum rates, they must have made enquirie's prior, to check how quickly they could re-staff. It does not make sense for them to sack everyone it would be weeks before you could operate again and BA would have gone elsewhere. I bet they had agencies with 'people waiting lists' before they kicked this off.

It would have been obvious after the event but its blown up in thier faces this time.

[MarkG]

The 2nd is because it stops a CEO increasing his income by reducing that of the workforce, also the workforce would have a financial incentive to make the company succeed.

More likely:

1. all low-paid jobs would be outsourced.

and/or

2. salary would be replaced with stock options and other incentives which wouldn't fall under that rule.

And, obviously, the government would make itself exempt, so that change wouldn't have any effect on this guy's looting of the public pork trough.

[Andrew McP]

"Man gets bonus" is hardly news though is it?

I don't begrudge him his money if he's earned it. Has he earned it? No idea, I'm not his boss and I didn't draw up his contract.

Last year I got a £50 bonus. But then my work's just a *little* less responsible than trying to persuade nationwide industry to cut its energy consumption. And to be honest I was probably only worth about £27.46 of that (plus or minus a few p).

Andrew McP

[deano]

More likely:

1. all low-paid jobs would be outsourced.

I don't believe in outsourcing to slave labour countries either.and/or

2. salary would be replaced with stock options and other incentives which wouldn't fall under that rule.

It can be ringfenced its not a problem

And, obviously, the government would make itself exempt, so that change wouldn't have any effect on this guy's looting of the public pork trough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Politicians should not have bussiness interests when in office, Lord Sainsbury a case in point. Thier salary gives them a satisfactory living and is not designed to reflect the importance of thier jobs and neither should it.

[Harry Sacks]

"Man gets bonus" is hardly news though is it?

I don't begrudge him his money if he's earned it. Has he earned it? No idea, I'm not his boss and I didn't draw up his contract.

Last year I got a £50 bonus. But then my work's just a *little* less responsible than trying to persuade nationwide industry to cut its energy consumption. And to be honest I was probably only worth about £27.46 of that (plus or minus a few p).

Andrew McP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you meet the targets you were asked to for your 50 quid?

'Cause this guy aint doin' the biz and he still gets 50 grand!

Oh, and some of it came from your wages!

Edited August 14, 2005 by dom

[patprimer74]

This is why pay should be legally required to relate 1st to performance and also to the lowest pay in the company.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's extremely naive to believe that we can legislate to decide how salaries/benefits are decided. Private industry can pay whatever it likes but is answerable to shareholders. Public services, too, can pay whatever they like but they are answerable to us, the electors. If we're unhappy with their decisions, then we can vote them out, can't we. Some of you may well be unhappy with the result of the recent election but it's what our demcratic system - imperfect as it may be - produced.

Does anyone really expect The Torygraph to run a story which is favourable to a Labour Government? After all, it's only the Dail Mail of the literates.

p

[Harry Sacks]

It's extremely naive to believe that we can legislate to decide how salaries/benefits are decided.  Private industry can pay whatever it likes but is answerable to shareholders.  Public services, too, can pay whatever they like but they are answerable to us, the electors.  If we're unhappy with their decisions, then we can vote them out, can't we.  Some of you may well be unhappy with the result of the recent election but it's what our demcratic system - imperfect as it may be - produced.

Does anyone really expect The Torygraph to run a story which is favourable to a Labour Government?  After all, it's only the Dail Mail of the literates.

p

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate to say it, but you're right.

I think the apathy towards politics and the I'm alright jack mentality of the british plays a big part.

[deano]

It's extremely naive to believe that we can legislate to decide how salaries/benefits are decided.  Private industry can pay whatever it likes but is answerable to shareholders.  Public services, too, can pay whatever they like but they are answerable to us, the electors.  If we're unhappy with their decisions, then we can vote them out, can't we.  Some of you may well be unhappy with the result of the recent election but it's what our demcratic system - imperfect as it may be - produced.

Does anyone really expect The Torygraph to run a story which is favourable to a Labour Government?  After all, it's only the Dail Mail of the literates.

p

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why can't we do it, we can introduce it over a period of time and private business can operate its pay system within a framework.

[aclwalker]

Climate-change boss gets £50,000 bonus as carbon emissions soar

By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor

(Filed: 14/08/2005)

The head of the Government's climate-change quango has been awarded a £50,000 bonus despite Britain's greenhouse gas emissions soaring for the third year running.

Tom Delay, the chief executive...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL, aptly named then if he's not performing. Perhaps he's planning on doing it later.

On another note, though, can anyone actually believe the statistics for carbon emissions anyway? How can it possibly be known with any sort of accuracy what every single home, office, factory, etc in the country emits? It seems to me it would be extremely easy to fiddle these figures anyway.

[patprimer74]

Why can't we do it, we can introduce it over a period of time and private business can operate its pay system within a framework.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why can't we do it? Quite simple. Who would decide the targets set and achieved? There isn't a system clever enough to take all effects into account. Say, an airline CEO doesn't reach his profits target but oil prices have increased 50% since the target was set. Should that person have part of his income taken away (which, in effect, is what it would be) because of circumstances outside his control? What if a hospital trust fails to treat the planned number of patients but there's been an unexpected outbreak of avian flu? Do you punish the executives?

It's up to the employer, whether private or public, to decide on salaries and other benefits and under what circumstances they are paid. There is no 'one size fits all' system. One thing's for sure - 'Pay peanuts, get monkeys', and that applies both in the public and private sectors.

p

[laurejon]

Public services, too, can pay whatever they like but they are answerable to us, the electors.

That would have been true under the Tories, but as we all know the Labour Party are corrupt to the core, setting up trusts and PFI's to farm off the taxpayers money to their pals.

Public Services are Public Servants and nobody pays their servant more than themselves.

Once a thief always a thief and Labour are nothing but a ragtag of greedy small minded individuals who think that a vision they had many years ago whilst laying under the stars together under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs should now be inflicted on hard working British Families.

[Harry Sacks]

On another note, though, can anyone actually believe the statistics for carbon emissions anyway?  How can it possibly be known with any sort of accuracy what every single home, office, factory, etc in the country emits?  It seems to me it would be extremely easy to fiddle these figures anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly! The useless tw@t can't even fiddle an unknown quantity and still gets a bonus. What a numpty!

Edited August 14, 2005 by dom

[patprimer74]

That would have been true under the Tories, but as we all know the Labour Party are corrupt to the core, setting up trusts and PFI's to farm off the taxpayers money to their pals.

Public Services are Public Servants and nobody pays their servant more than themselves.

Once a thief always a thief and Labour are nothing but a ragtag of greedy small minded individuals who think that a vision they had many years ago whilst laying under the stars together under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs should now be inflicted on hard working British Families.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're a terribly bad loser, Laura! Isn't democracy such a bind!

p

[laurejon]

'Pay peanuts, get monkeys', and that applies both in the public and private sectors.

Well now that explains why we have such a bad Government....are they on ready salted or just plain?.

[Guest growl]

Does anyone really expect The Torygraph to run a story which is favourable to a Labour Government?  After all, it's only the Dail Mail of the literates.

p

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to agree with you there. Its a bit like the Guardian is the Mirror of the literates.

What do you read. Just out of interest?

[backtoparents]

I read Family Circle and TV Quick.

This forum constitutes one of my more intellectually adventurous days.

/G

[Elizabeth]

That would have been true under the Tories, but as we all know the Labour Party are corrupt to the core, setting up trusts and PFI's to farm off the taxpayers money to their pals.

Public Services are Public Servants and nobody pays their servant more than themselves.

Once a thief always a thief and Labour are nothing but a ragtag of greedy small minded individuals who think that a vision they had many years ago whilst laying under the stars together under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs should now be inflicted on hard working British Families.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Totally agree with the analysis of Labour, but I am really facinated by the idea that the tories are any better. Does anyone remember that Dame in Westminster who sold the houses to get votes, and then ran away to Israel? Does anyone remember the tory sell off of the rail system... which is now so rubbish that ... (well, lets just not mention Hatfield).

[Elizabeth]

That would have been true under the Tories, but as we all know the Labour Party are corrupt to the core, setting up trusts and PFI's to farm off the taxpayers money to their pals.

Public Services are Public Servants and nobody pays their servant more than themselves.

Once a thief always a thief and Labour are nothing but a ragtag of greedy small minded individuals who think that a vision they had many years ago whilst laying under the stars together under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs should now be inflicted on hard working British Families.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Totally agree with the analysis of Labour, but I am really facinated by the idea that the tories are any better. Does anyone remember that dame in Westminster who sold the houses to get votes, and then ran away to Israel? Does anyone remember the tory sell off of the rail system... which is now so rubbish that ... (well, lets just not mention Hatfield).

[backtoparents]

Dame Shirley Porter I think.

Thank heavens we've now got postal voting to fiddle the votes. Much cheaper and much more effective. Hats off to the incumbent for saving us some money there.

/G

[laurejon]

Totally agree with the analysis of Labour, but I am really facinated by the idea that the tories are any better. Does anyone remember that dame in Westminster who sold the houses to get votes, and then ran away to Israel? Does anyone remember the tory sell off of the rail system... which is now so rubbish that ... (well, lets just not mention Hatfield).

Well I do remember the National Freight Corporation which was part of British Rail. The Trains were on strike most of the time and there was nothing we could do.

However selling it all off to me was very wrong.

I also remember the Houses for Votes, but I am mindfull that Labour have sold many more council houses than the Tories ever did. In fact I think Labour sold all the Inland Revenue offices to one of Tony Blairs friends not long ago and he charges a fortune in rent.

[laurejon]

I also remember that under the Tories in every town and city was a man known as a Dentist.

A Dentist is a person we had in the old Tory days who cared for your childrens teeth in exchange for your national insurance contributions.

[IMupNorth]

Look, New Labour are modernising Britain - this means they are installing their own puppets in every aspect of the Civil Service, the BBC, quangos, interest groups etc. Anyone of these puppets on the Government payroll are given big pay packets and bonus' to thank them for their work in modernising Britain.

Businessmen who think the right way are lined up for Lordships and are given 'access' to Government and new favourable laws (eg licensing laws for one) to thank them for their support.

This 'modernising' is simply about redistributing money and power from the 'old' establishment to the New Labour establishment. Its just clever, modern day marxism, where the cronies will control every facet of life and what you are allowed to say and think. Increasingly, the only way to get on in life is to be a member of 'The Party'.

Every action from modernising the House of Lords, open door immigration policy, ID cards is about controlling society and ensuring New Labour and its cronies stay in charge and they become the new fat cats.

[deano]

This is why pay should be legally required to relate 1st to performance and also to the lowest pay in the company.  The 1st is obvious.  The 2nd is because it stops a CEO increasing his income by reducing that of the workforce, also the workforce would have a financial incentive to make the company succeed.  This has been done in Japan and it obviously worked.

I suspect in the case of Gormet Gate that they engineered the dispute not the unions.  They probably thought they could sack the employees and employ new at minimum rates, they must have made enquirie's prior, to check how quickly they could re-staff.  It does not make sense for them to sack everyone it would be weeks before you could operate again and BA would have gone elsewhere.  I bet they had agencies with 'people  waiting lists' before they kicked this off.

It would have been obvious after the event but its blown up in thier faces this time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm going to update you on this: Apparentley Gormet Gate are in serious financial difficulties (£177,000,000 in the red). They have a three year contract with BA but have recentley begged them to renegotiate because of losses that will bankrupt it.

The employer of these people is getting desparate, they'ed like to cut wages but they got T&G watching them. What a crap situation they are in. like I said the company probably pre-planned this, they just didn't bank on the secondary action which bought BA to there front door.

[BoredTrainBuilder]

On another note, though, can anyone actually believe the statistics for carbon emissions anyway?  How can it possibly be known with any sort of accuracy what every single home, office, factory, etc in the country emits?  It seems to me it would be extremely easy to fiddle these figures anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not difficult to measure energy consumption, after all it's metered. Then it is a direct calculation back to carbon produced. This can be cross-checked with fuel actually burnt in generating plant.