As chief executive for a company that is 70 percent owned by the government, a 9.6 million pounds pay package is quite a tidy sum.

It is a package that makes Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Stephen Hester almost as well as paid as the Real Madrid-bound Cristiano Ronaldo.

True the package has caveats - it is dependent on targets including shareholder return and absolute share performance - and is line with other British banking chiefs.

But in these more frugal post-global downturn times does that make it right? In trying to get itself shipshape, RBS has slashed over 15,000 jobs as it received its £20 billion pounds government bailout.

As details of the pay package were revealed it also emerged that RBS, which has been pilloried over the pension awarded to Hester’s predecessor Fred Goodwin, will be spending £300,000 on corporate entertainment at Wimbledon over the next fortnight. Doh!

Given the taxpayer-funded bailout of RBS is Hester worth £9.6m?

While Gordon Brown increasingly draws comparisons to the mortally wounded bull gasping his last at a Spanish corrida, one personality at Westminster  has been putting on a show of decisive policy-making that has brought the bloodthirsty crowd to its feet.

Totally at ease with publicity, absurdly photogenic and much loved amongst the electorate at large, actress Joanna Lumley — AbFab’s Patsy to the younger ones, The Avengers’ Purdy to more seasoned TV viewers — has provided Westminster watchers with an object lesson in how to get things done.

She has led the charge for the Gurkhas from the start, corralling the press, harrying ministers over their right to settle in Britain and even holding private meetings with Gordon Brown when she felt it was time to go to the top.

Yesterday was perhaps her finest hour as she handbagged the hapless immigration minster Phil Woolas in the Westminster offices of the BBC as the cameras rolled, reportedly extracting more concessions from him.

It was a stirring performance and one which has only served to underline the apparent weakness of the government.

But should an unelected lobbyist really be allowed to have such an influence on policy? 

This is after all an immigration issue and surely no government would take on such a formidable combination as Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas and risk all the negative headlines if it did not feel the issue was important.

Is it time for Patsy to exit stage right and leave the issue to our elected representatives? 

Smokers and top earners were clear losers in Britain’s budget this year, as the government hiked taxes on cigarettes and the highest incomes.

But a lucky few must have been cheering in front of their televisions during the 51-minute speech.

Budget-watchers who bet hard cash that the chancellor of the exchequer, Alistair Darling, would wear a grey or blue tie to his address got a welcome bit of stimulus from the budget.

Betting firm Ladbrokes was giving odds of 3/1 and 16/a for a blue and grey, respectively. Perhaps aware of the odds, Darling put on a blue-gray striped one, and Ladbrokes paid out for both colours.

“We thought it was blue at first, but as the hour rolled on we decided that, much like the content of the speech, it was in fact grey,” Ladbrokes spokesman David Williams said.

The real money came with real risk, howerver. If you wagered 20 pounds that Alistair Darling would let loose with the word “depression” during his speech — many thought it too gloomy to say out loud — the return was a cool 320 pounds.

Smaller, but by no means negligible, reutrns were reserved for bets on the words “downturn”, with 4/5 odds, “recovery” at 1/5, and “credit crunch” — still profitable with odds of 3 to 1.

There was no mention at all, however, of the one word that drew more bets than all others put together: “sorry”. Odds that Darling would apologise about the state of the economy, always a long shot, narrowed from 20/1 to 4/1 in the run-up to the speech, the betting firm said.

And for those who take their thrills wherever they can find them, spread betters were offering an over-under spread of 54.5 to 56 minutes for the length of Darling’s speech.

He managed to keep it gonig for 51 minutes this time around, just under a minute longer than last year.

As the recession closes one door for bankers, another quickly opens.

The government’s latest educational wheeze is to allow teachers to qualify in just six months, half the current one-year time period.

Schools Minister Jim Knight wants to attract “more outstanding people” to the profession and hopes the scheme could help those such as bankers, who were excellent mathematicians and had been made unemployed, switch careers.

Predictably the unions are less keen on the proposal, arguing the truncated training period is too short to prepare new recruits for such a demanding profession.

“I think it demeans the position of people who are teachers at the moment. It doesn’t seem to be a sensible idea at all,” said Christine Blower, acting general secretary of the NUT.

But before signing on the dotted line, ex-bankers interested in taking up the government’s offer might think about taking a trip to the cinema and watch the Palme d’Or winner “The Class”.

Laurent Cantet’s cinematic tour de force portrays a Parisian middle school teacher’s struggles to educate a fiesty group of inner-city kids. If you thought the trading floor was a bear pit…….

Is the government scheme the right way to attract new recruits to the profession? Or does the fast-track plan indicate a short-term approach to developing teachers?

The government has recommended that parents should not allow children to drink alcohol until they reach the age of 15, in the latest attempt to stop the growing tide of juvenile drinking.

It says its research has found clear parental guidelines make a difference.

“Evidence … shows that things that families do … to point out the negative and health effects of alcohol lead to children drinking much later nearer to adulthood and drinking moderately in adult life,” says Chief Medical Officer Liam Donaldson.

The law leaves control of drinking at home to a parent’s discretion and only bars the consumption of alcohol by children under five. Some parents allow their children to drink with them occasionally in the hope of demystifying the allure of alcohol and teaching them responsible ways.

Others however say this is just another example of the “nanny state” and that what parents may or may not say has very little sway once the kids are out on the town, bent on getting drunk.

Do you believe that what children learn at home about alcohol makes any difference?

The year 2008 has been filled with unprecedented events and all-time lows, a financial system overhaul and global turmoil. Could the New Year herald positive re-evaluation and a positive turnaround? And in what has been a year of sleepless nights for many, will a nation steeped in debt start to curb excess?

Rate cuts figured high on the news agenda as banks undertook radical measures to stabilise the economy. Within the space of one week, Britain saw the lowest base rate since the mid-1950s, the ECB took its rate to a two-and-a-half year low, the U.S. Federal Reserve aggressively slashed rates and a 175 point reduction was made by Sweden’s central bank.

The key question remains – will governments run out of weapons to boost the economy in 2009?

Gazing into a crystal ball has never been quite this tricky, and perhaps the most accurate prediction from industry experts is that policymakers will likely find themselves strapped for more tools to combat the crisis.

To the average citizen, sophisticated financial gadgetry will not alleviate fears of rising unemployment levels and inflation worries. Borrowing costs for those whose home equity and other floating-rate loans are tied to the prime interest rate may have seen some relief from rate cuts, but the gain has been negligible for others.

Early this month, the IMF’s chief economist Olivier Blanchard opined that the host of government rescue measures may have brought global economies back from the brink of the worst financial catastrophe in more than 60 years, but did not remove it from the danger zone. Progress had been made, he conceded, but insisted it was “much too early to declare a victory.”

On November 6, the IMF cut its world growth projections to a mere 2.2 percent, emphasising the need for an immediate fiscal stimulus. “At this point, the goal should be fiscal boost of about 2 percent of global GDP,” said Blanchard. He remained optimistic that this would translate into a corresponding 2 percent increase in global growth.

Two weeks ago, Bank of England Deputy Governor Charles Bean said zero interest rates were a future possibility for Britain. Both the Fed and the Bank of Japan have adopted a near zero interest rate policy, with the former stating a willingness to keep rates low for an extended period.

It is worth noting however, that the co-ordinated round of rate cuts by central banks worldwide in October did not have the desired immediate impact on the state of the financial system.

Until market risk aversion eases, lowered interest rates may not impact the economy to the extent that governments would like. Additionally, as banks further their attempts to deleverage, we may very well see small bursts of stability, but a period of sustained growth seems unlikely to return in 2009.

In the interim however, we can certainly hope that some confidence is returned to both frazzled consumers and strained financial markets alike. And while extensive borrowing and emergency measures will increase countries’ debt, shoring up resources to prop up the global economy is set to be the overriding priority for a long time to come.

A poll for the BBC has indicated that the vast majority of the public want British troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan within the next year.

Since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, 124 British soldiers have been killed, with two Royal Marines becoming the latest casualties when their convoy was hit by an explosion on Wednesday.

Defence Secretary John Hutton says it is more important than ever that the 8,000 British troops remain in the country to fight the resurgent Taliban, saying it is vital to British security and interests.

On a trip to London with President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s foreign minister has said more international forces were needed while U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to send in more U.S. troops.

Do you think British troops should stay in Afghanistan? Send us your comments.

• You know exactly what the population of Iceland is and can also pronounce the name of its prime minister.
• Even the word ‘crisis’ seems to have lost its currency.
• Countries pop up for sale on eBay for 99p and get few offers.
• Posters on BBC messageboards stop discussing the undulating pitch of Robert Peston’s voice and listen to what he’s actually saying.
• The speech bubble on Page 3 of the Sun is given over to discussing the credit crisis.
• Financial market updates displace stories about Jade Goody on the tabloid front pages.
• Bad news stories from government departments are rushed out day after day and not even the Opposition seems to notice.
• Estate agents finally admit house prices have fallen but tell you now is a really great time to buy because the market is stabilising.
• People marketing get-rich-quick property seminars don’t get taken seriously any more.
• The Chancellor, writing in the Financial Times, says that “now, more than ever, we need new ideas”.
• Your primary school-aged children know that credit crunch is not a type of biscuit and that IMF isn’t just a fictional organisation in Mission Impossible.
• You go for a while without noticing one estate agent’s mini and then you see a whole bunch of them on the back of a car transporter.
• A pensioner on the evening tube train from Canary Wharf gives up her seat to a banker because she reckons he might need it.
• The Ivy rings to ask if you’d like a table tonight or any night.
• There are no spare trolleys when you turn up at Aldi to do your weekly shop.

Do you have any better suggestions? All contributions welcome - please send in your selection.

Should parents be allowed to smack their children, or should smacking be treated the same as an assault?

A group of MPs is again pushing for a change in the law for an outright ban on smacking.

The current law allows parents to smack their children but the punishment cannot leave bruises, cuts or scratches.

Those who overstep the mark can face prison. Campaigners say this situation is a mess and confusing for parents. Children’s Commissioner for England Al Aynsley-Green has spoken out against it.

However, polls indicate that the majority of parents believe they should have the right to discipline their children how they want, including the use of smacking.

Should smacking be banned? Send us your comments 

Anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) says serious thought should be given to a ban on smoking in cars.

In a report which says smoking costs the NHS 2.7 billion pounds a year, the lobby group argues that millions of children and young people are exposed to second-hand smoke in vehicles every day.

Similar bans are in place elsewhere in the world and a poll shows that the British public also supports such action.

Pro-smoking groups say such suggestions are just an attempt to stigmatise smokers and bully them into quitting. Lobby group Forest says such moves are an attack on the freedoms of adult smokers.

What do you think? Send us your comments