Rather belatedly (via Bel) I see this amazing quote from Ian Gibson:
I don’t think people should have bonuses at all. They are unacceptable.
I suspect Gibson is revealing an interesting bias within Labourism here.
Put it this way. In what world would such a statement be valid?
It would be one in which incentives were unimportant. And this, in turn, would be a world where people had no effect upon outcomes. It's be one where workers filled space, like those poor sods with placards advertising golf sales, or merely obeyed bosses' instructions*. In such a world, bonuses and incentives would be unacceptable, as they'd introduce useless random noise into pay.
This would be a world in which workers had no agency at all, but were merely passive objects to be manipulated.
This presumption illuminates the distinction between mine and Labour's leftism. Much (not all) Labour policy does regard people as passive objects. Workers need minimum wage and health and safety laws because they're incapable of fighting for decent pay and conditions themselves. They need a nanny state as they can't choose correctly how to live their lives. And workers' control of firms and public sector bodies is not even considered, because workers aren't fit to run organizations.
By contrast, my leftism rests on a view that people are capable of running their own lives - or at least would be if they were given the chance to develop the capacity to do so. Hence my support for free markets, worker control and direct democracy.
I mention this for two reasons. First, please don't think that the "left" is all as illiberal, patronizing and economically illiterate as Gibson. Second, to highlight an oft-ignored fact - that our political beliefs often rest upon a conception of what "human nature" is, or could be.
* And presumably bosses themselves merely obeyed orders - it'll be bosses all the way up.