“So much for the likes of Toby Young and other Tories being in touch with public opinion on this issue.”

Wasn’t the most high profile politician opining that banker bashing was populist and in danger of being self-defeating one Alistair Darling ?

Meh. Appeal to majority. We probably ARE indulging in too much banker-bashing, or at the very least the bashing isn’t targeted enough: bankers have joined politicians, lawyers and parking attendents in the “All X are bastards” line uttered by idiots pretending to be wise.

They may be out of touch with the public, but that does not mean they are incorrect.
The damage to business does not lie in the fact that we’ve upset bankers, but in the credibility of Britain as a stable business environment and a place to do business.
It is one thing to change the regulations and policies – to discuss with business the terms of reference by which business is done in Britain (as Ed Miliband is seeking to do). It is another thing altogether to lash out post hoc and retrospectively at individuals with whom the public has become disillusioned. It is not up for argument whether this discourages business … it just does.
I have blogged about this at interminable length at http://bit.ly/wTNgXm

The 70% figure who claim that banker bashing hasn’t gone far enough is remarkably similar to the 70% who support the government’s benefit cap or want it reduced further.

You don’t seem so keen to go with popular opinion on that front, Sunny.

My take (and one which anecdotally seems quite mainstream) is that no one particularly likes vilifying individuals (Hester seems to have been particularly unlucky in this respect) but that everyone (Tories included) think that bankers are hugely overpaid relative to their economic contribution and relative to other professional jobs. And that “rewards for failure” seem greater than in other industries.

It isn’t so much bankers that need to be bashed but bankers’ salaries.

Neither was the public convinced it would discourage foreign companies from coming here.

So much for the likes of Toby Young and other Tories being in touch with public opinion on this issue.

And Lord Digby Jones, going by the buffoon’s appearance on Question Time last week. When is someone going to take Jones to task for his blithering stupidity on the eocnomy and what businesses need?

When is someone going to take Jones to task for his blithering stupidity on the eocnomy and what businesses need?

Enough to make you wonder why Gordon made him a minister, isn’t it?

@BenM

“And Lord Digby Jones, going by the buffoon’s appearance on Question Time last week. When is someone going to take Jones to task for his blithering stupidity on the eocnomy and what businesses need?”

You are going to have to come up with some evidence that someone like Digby Jones doesn’t know what British business needs and wants. His CV suggests he should know exactly what British business needs.

Now you may not agree with their demands…….

He serves as Chairman of the British Airways International Advisory Board[1] and is Senior Advisor to HSBC, a Corporate Ambassador for Jaguar Cars, a Corporate Advisor to JCB, Advisor to Harvey Nash Group plc, Babcock International Group plc[1] and Advisor to Grove Industries Limited and Barberry Properties plc.[1] He is also a member of the Advisory Board of Monitise Group plc and Chairman of Neutrino Concepts Ltd.

The problem with basing policies on polling is that is quite likely polls would demonstrate support for the following:

We want more benefits bashing
We want more foriegner bashing
We want lower taxes
We want more money for public services (and are too stupid to see the contradiction with the above)

@ 8

Word.

OK, lets see if I can get my head round this.

The directors of a private business make a number of errors of judgement causing their company to fail. For some reason, the government takes the money it has appropriated from taxpayers and bails it out.

The government now owns a majority of this failed business but it knows it has tried to run businesses like this in the past and has realised it is not very good at it. So it decides to stay at arms length instead, to recruit the best man for the job and get him to run it for them, as if it were still a real business.

They negotiate a contract with this man and, sensibly, a large portion of his package is based on performance against an agreed set of parameters.

A couple of years later, when the man is due to be paid according to this contract, the taxpayers now seem angry that their money has been so shamefully squandered and are jealous of the large sum of money the man is due to receive.

Whipped up by a knowing media the public now appear to be beginning to blame the government for the mess. As this is damaging for them, the politicians decide to deflect the blame onto the man they have recruited and bully him until he refuses to accept the payment contractually due to him.

Question.

Who has acted shamefully in this matter?

@pagar

A very good post.

One of the odd things about the recent banker-bashing is why it is so vociferous now and not two years ago.

Sir Fred still had his knighthood two years ago and RBS bankers were getting much bigger bonuses two years ago (and only paying 40% tax on them, not 50% as today) than they will get this year.

I suspect part of the reason is that there is a huge gap between the public who think the bankers have got off scot-free and the bankers who don’t believe this is the case. And part of the fault for this is that there isn’t much reporting of what has been forced on the bankers over the last two years.

City jobs have been lost in their tens of thousands. Salaries are off. Bonuses are down 70% from 2007 levels. Bonuses are all paid in restricted shares and subject to clawback. And there are new regulations on everything from capital adequacy to trading in OTC derivatives.

The idea that it is “business as usual” for the bankers is widely wide of the mark.

Though that isn’t to claim that bankers as a whole aren’t still overpaid. But I don’t think Hester is one of them. Not when you get £1m for reading the news or running a newspaper.

10. Pagar

The government now owns a majority of this failed business but it knows it has tried to run businesses like this in the past

Hahaha!

When was this decided?!!

How much more successful was it in private sector hands?!!!!!

Bank of England anyone?

Do rightwingers ever have any clue what they’re talking about?

I tend to agree with Shinsei67, it is pointless targetting individuals,it just reinforces the view that it is down to certain persons that the system failed.
Capitalism is about greed and self-interest and this is exactly what the bankers were doing, yes it was stupid to give someone a knighthood for it but it’s equally stupid taking it away. Deckchairs and the Titanic spring to mind.

@BenM

Government-run financial institutions screwed up just as badly as private sector ones during the financial crisis. Everything from the US Fannie Mae and Freddie Macs to the German landesbanks all crashed.

The UK government has a long record of running commercial businesses poorly – BT, British Airways, British Leyland, British Steel, Thomas Cook etc etc.

All synonymous with poor customer service, poor labour relations, unimaginative management, lack of innovation, poor levels of investment in capex or training, and poor profitability.

Banker bashing may well be an amusing pastime for the disposessed but it really doesnt do anything for the structural failures of the banking system which is a worldwide problem. Big banks equal big payouts. Sleazy big banks equals bigger payouts.

14 Shinsei

All synonymous with poor customer service, poor labour relations, unimaginative management, lack of innovation, poor levels of investment in capex or training, and poor profitability.

Those traits are synonymous with a lot of private sector orgs too.

@BenM

“Those traits are synonymous with a lot of private sector orgs too.”

Indeed, but the taxpayer doesn’t have to subsidise loss-making private sector businesses.

“but the taxpayer doesn’t have to subsidise loss-making private sector businesses.”

How much subsidy have the rail companies had since privitisation?

@planeshift:

“How much subsidy have the rail companies had since privatisation?”

The rail companies clearly aren’t private sector businesses. Hence the subsidies and say the government has in their management’s bonuses or lack of them.

@19: “The rail companies clearly aren’t private sector businesses. Hence the subsidies and say the government has in their management’s bonuses or lack of them.”

Nicholas Ridley, whom Mrs T achnowledged as her mentor on privatisation, came to oppose privatisation of the railways when he was appointed transport minister after the 1983 election and later.

He reckoned that the railways would always need public subsidy for social reasons and believed that could be more effectively managed and controlled within the public sector. It was long predicted that breaking up the railways into separate operating companies would increase the need for public subsidies because separate ownership would hugely reduce the scope for cross-subsidisation from the mostly profitable operations – such as inter-city services – to the loss-making local and commuter services. For all that, John Major’s government pressed ahead with privatisation of the railways regardless. The railways were privatised in the Railways Act 1993, the year that Ridley died.

@Bob B

Don’t disagree with you for a moment. Rail privatisation was always going to be a disaster.

But by 2002 it was back in public ownership through Network Rail.

Hence my comment that it isn’t a private sector business.

“The rail companies clearly aren’t private sector businesses”

Why? Because they operate within strict regulation and operate monopoly contracts awarded to them by government.

If this is the reason you don’t consider them private companies then neither are any privatised utilities, healthcare companies formed to take over NHS operations, or any businesses where public sector contracts form a large part of turnover.

So why do conservatives insist on saying privitisation is a success when they don’t regard the companies operating in the new markets as truly private sector? Surely they should term ‘privatisation’ differently?

@21: “But by 2002 it was back in public ownership through Network Rail.”

Only Network Rail, which manages and maintains the rail infrastructure, is back in public ownership. The operating companies for the rail services remain in the private sector but the fares they can charge are subject to the rail regulator

The point is being missed.

It’s not that “banker bashing” is a good thing because the public is in favour of it.

But, if you support policies that increase banking regulation and redistribute the tax burden from the poor to the very wealthy then the fact that the public has little sympathy for bankers is very definitely good news.

On the benefits cap the left is swimming against the tide, and it should be, but on bankers it is very much with the tide.

@OP, Sunny: “Asked if it was right to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood – 67% of people said it was right, while only 18% said it was the wrong decision.”

The thing about stripping Fred Goodwin of his knighthood is that once you’ve done it, you have eliminated one of the opportunities for banker bashing. In fact having Fred sitting their with his knighthood was beneficial because it made people think whether it is right to give honours to business people for being business people. Give business people honours for charitable work but don’t award them badges for doing their day jobs.

One of the conventions of local government is that you don’t name roads and buildings after local dignitaries until they have been dead for a while. Leave it a bit for reflection and revelation, let the dodgy stuff emerge from the woodwork. That way councillors do not unwittingly name a street the equivalent of Pervert Avenue or Crook Close.

You can’t apply the same rule to personal awards that are only meaningful if given during the beneficiaries life. But you can avoid embarrassment by awarding them for a merit (sporting achievement, scientific discovery, charitable work) that cannot easily be taken away.