They're right. Stephen Hester should be paid more, quite a lot more, for running one of the world's biggest and most complex banks. But he's also working for the Government, RBS's biggest shareholder, which is capable of precipitating the most crass outcomes when bending to its Parliamentary opponents.
Hester's pay row was just one more example of the contradictions that bedevil a government-owned bank. What's good for taxpayers (and voters) as bank shareholders may be seen as bad for the same people as bank customers.
This was clear in 2008 when we recapitalised RBS and Lloyds Banking Group, although I assumed then the Treasury, with £66bn tied up in the two banks, would act to protect and enhance the value of its investments not damage them, which has been the case.
Anyway, all this highlights how undesirable it is for the Coalition to continue owning the stakes. Which brings us to the question of selling them.
Given how under water the shares are, the debate's a tad premature. But the answer is to sell to the highest possible bidder as quickly as possible.
Distributing shares to taxpayers is costly, impractical and not particularly fair or risk-free politically. Some don't want them, some will lose them, some won't get them, some won't understand them and quite a lot will be insulted by them when they see the small allocation each taxpayer is entitled to after enduring years of austerity. It would be more cost-effective, practical and fair to all if the Treasury sells our stakes and uses the bulk proceeds to pay down debt or fund tax cuts to stimulate growth.
The practicalities of selling such large stakes means the process will have to be done in relatively small tranches using all methods, including stake sales to institutions such as sovereign wealth funds and hedge funds, placings on the stockmarket and cheap retail offers too.
What it won't be is quick. If we begin during this Parliament (big if), the process may not be complete before the end of the next Parliament. But none of this can happen until banks start to recover, which in turn requires confidence to recover. So a government lacking a coherent growth strategy is unlikely to enjoy a successful exit strategy for its bank stakes.
One man watching the fate of Jamie Dimon with more interest than most will be rival rainmaker Lloyd Blankfein.
The two men have one thing in common, well two to be exact, and that's their jobs. Both hold down the dual roles of chief executive and chairman – a habit frowned upon by UK shareholders but tolerated in the US – until now.
Dimon's butter fingers in allowing JP Morgan to drop $2bn, possibly more, in botched risk management has prompted serious shareholders to call for him to split the roles. If that applies to Dimon then surely it applies to Blankfein's Goldman Sachs roles too. Effective risk management requires the chief executive to hive off some responsibilities to an independent chairman, who can better keep an eye on what's happening on behalf of shareholders than an all- powerful, dual-role banker. If you're a Goldmans shareholder, why wait for a $2bn Dimon-style cock-up before this little penny drops?
The more Heathrow and its advocates roar about its limitations as a global hub, the more they highlight the attractions of its nearest rival – Gatwick. Under newish ownership, Gatwick has received £1bn of investment with another £1bn to come. It has plenty of capacity with improved terminals built to take bigger, quieter planes. It has just added Air China to Beijing. If BA's oneworld alliance is Heathrow-centric then rival Star Alliance could be more Gatwick-biased. An upgraded link to London is needed but Gatwick's case should be heard.
damian.reece@telegraph.co.uk
