Greedy Bankers? Really?

It was only a few years ago that the annual Bankers' bonuses were good newspaper and TV news fodder. By 'good' I mean the kind of subject that was reported with a mixture of admiration and awe, and in the case of TV coverage, rolls of the presenters' eyes heavenwards.

We, the masses, soaked up the superlatives with some envy, but nevertheless enjoyed learning of the £x,000 bottles of wine that were being quaffed, and new Ferraris that were about to be wrecked, on the strength of these bonuses.

Now I may be wrong, but I don't recall hearing Alistair Darling, or Mr Brown, as the Chancellor then was, protesting at the size, or even the existence of these bonuses then. I am pretty sure that Vince All Wisdom Cable didn't have anything to say either. Nor George Osborne, though, to be fair, he was probably still at school.

So what's changed? How come that, since the global financial upheaval, these bonuses have become not only noticed by our politicians, but positively frowned upon?

Is it that the legal framework, the contracts of employment under which the bonuses have been paid, have become less legal? Doesn't sound likely does it? I don't recall hearing anyone say that the law has changed.

Is it, then, that the politicians have seen the light, and have had a Saul moment on the road to Damascus, or wherever politicians go? Have they realised that income, beyond a certain limit, is not only unnecessary, but quite bad for you and should be stopped?

'Welllll', as Jeremy Paxman would say, apparently not. I mean, they haven't complained about footballers' salaries and sponsorship. They have made no adverse comment, that I have heard, concerning the Captains of Industry; television celebrities; Tony Blair (reportedly!); Simon Cowell etc etc raking in their millions.

So is it simply that our trusted and highly respected politicians, who are well noted for their probity in all things fiscal, simply believe that some of the bankers are just getting more than they should do for the job.

Welllllll, this is not really a possibility either. If the politicians believe in a free market economy (and I grant you that, apart from self-preservation, it's hard to know what politicians believe in nowadays), then the remuneration packages reflect just what someone is prepared to pay, and no more!

So. We have a real conundrum.

If the bonuses are not illegal; not too big, and in line with market forces, why have the politicians taken such a dislike to bankers?

I think the answer lies in politicians' need always to be seen to be doing something constructive. It is part of their self-promotion, and, hence, self-preservation regime.

Now, I would be prepared to bet that there is not a single member of the House of Commons, including, obviously, the cabinet and the shadow cabinet, that has held a senior post in a bank. This being the case, our MPs and Ministers, who have no practical experience of running a bank, cannot possibly contribute, in any meaningful way, to the resolution of the multi-national financial problems which we have seen during the last 18 months or so.

But, for their own interests, they need to be seen to be doing something.

So what do they do?

They nibble around the edges of the problem and declare, with much huffing and puffing, that our UK bankers, and their bonuses lie at the heart of the matter.

And their answer to these international problems?

Chopping UK bankers' bonuses will go a long way to sorting things out!!!!!!

And, of course, this is just what, they think, the electorate wants to hear.

We are not sufficiently educated to understand the finer points of sub-prime mortgages; toxic debts; exchange rates. But, yippeee, we all understand multi-million pound bonuses, which are something that a few bankers get that we don't.

That's got to be a vote getter.

Saving energy

We in Birmingham are expert in the art of installation of all kinds of controlled crossings, be they pedestrian or otherwise, because we have so many of them. I would like to say that they mushroom, but that analogy would not be suitable given that mushrooms appear within a few days, whereas our crossings take at best weeks if not months to complete.

It is, I suppose, because of the exposure to the ever-growing number of crossings, that a couple of thoughts have occurred to me. They seem so obvious that I am surprised nobody has promulgated them before. Maybe they have and I missed it, or maybe I have just got the wrong end of the stick because I'm not always right.

However, for what it's worth, here are my bright ideas.

Given that we are all being exalted to save energy, and reduce waste, thereby saving yet more energy:-

1) Why are pedestrian crossing traffic signals always on? I can understand the red and green men always being on so that pedestrians have no excuse for being run over, and the respective Local Authority's hands are nice and clean when the do! But I do not understand why the red/amber/green traffic signals are always on. The only one of these which is of importance to the driver is the red one. So why, during the long periods of traffic signal ’green’, are they simply not switched off. When a pedestrian presses the button to cross, the traffic signals can come on ‘green’ and cycle to amber and red as usual. After the period for the pedestrians to cross has expired, the traffic signals would cycle red and amber to green as usual, and after an agreed time, of say 1 minute, switch off completely. Thus for most of the night, if not, indeed, most of the day as well, the traffic signals would be off, thereby saving energy and cost. Simple.

Which brings me to my other point….

2) Why do pedestrian crossings have so many sets of traffic signals these days? Gone are the days when one set of three (red, amber, green) on each side of the road was deemed adequate. Now we, in Birmingham, (I can’t speak for other places), have not one or two or even three sets of signals, but FIVE on each side ie 10 per crossing – some on top of others!! Just think of the mouth-watering energy savings that are waiting to be had if we switched off these little babies for most of each day!

Actually there's a good argument to be made for having most ordinary traffic lights switched off except at certain (maybe rush hour) times. The amount of fuel wasted by vehicles sitting waiting at traffic lights on Sunday mornings; nights etc must be considerable and probably in direct proportion to the shortening in length of the drivers' patience while they sit looking at empty roads.

My first Blog

Well, after much thought I have finally decided to write a blog.

I don't know what 'blog' stands for - maybe it's an acronym - and I don't know who, if anyone, will ever read it. However, on the off-chance that someone will, I must own up at once to writing under a pseudonym.

The blog creation process didn't ask for my name but merely the name under which the blog would be signed. So I assumed that pseudonyms are acceptable. If they are not then I expect to be deleted; expunged; hanged, or whatever, in very short order -- and rightly so!

What can be expected to appear in my blog?

Well, occasionally I have good ideas, although I accept that I'm not always right. I have written to the Sunday Times once and the Daily Mail a couple of times but neither have thought my submissions worth printing or even following up. So there's a good indication that there is probably not much point in anyone following this blog. I mean if the Daily Mail thinks I'm rubbish, then I really have to be at the bottom of the pile.

Apart from my good ideas, I have fairly strong views about certain Local Authorities. I live in Birmingham, England, and observe at close quarters the workings of both Birmingham and neighbouring Sandwell. I will be writing about things which these Authorities do, which, in my opinion, are unnecessary; unwise; foolish or just downright unforgivable.

For now, however, I will confine myself to this fairly basic introduction.

John Oaks