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.