So, apparently there are 5,000 bankers who will get million-pound bonuses this Christmas...

[edam]

wonder whether anyone would back my single-issue 'let's take it ALL off them and raise £5bn to pay off the national debt' party?

I'm sorry, why are we all suddenly answerable to you Edam?

You haven't acknowledged a single point made by anyone. You say things like "pro-banker lobby". People were just trying to give you a helpful insight so that you could possibly temper your view slightly based on a wider perspective. Can I call you the "anti-banker lobby"? Are you ok with that generalisation?

Do you think all bankers are immoral, grasping satanists? Do you? How about you answer some of our questions for a change?

Point out one comment where somebody on here "hadn't noticed the crash".

When someone has a huge chip on their shoulder, it's very difficult to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

My point was that all corporates/individuals need to do more not only banks.

What do you think banks need to do that they haven't done and why (other than your desire to punish)?

Edam I'm very surprised no-one has told you to F*off yet. I guess the "pro-banker lobby" are too polite.

I'm not.

I agree totally Rosie. Edam- you have such a blinkered view of this- it is not a goodies v baddies issue with bankers as baddies who must be punished

Edam and MrsB the pair of you need to go and lie down for a while. You sound like broken records. Totally entrenched, rigid, "I'm right, you're wrong", absolutely no room for adjustment. You reject every single comment made by anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with you. Did you start this just to have a go? Don't you realise that forums are a fair exchange of views? And that maybe, just maybe, you are not always in possession of every last fact on a matter. And that maybe some people on here are a little bit closer to the situation than you and have something intelligent to offer also?

I actually agree with Druidqueen. Between you, you have been very offensive, making all sorts of judgements about the lives and morals of people you don't know. I know which "lobby" I'd rather have a coffee with. The one that lets me speak and respects my views and is open to discussion. Not the one that stands up and shouts "Oi, this is what I think, and if you disagree you're a w*nker."

"Now, we seem to getting somewhere..." You are very pompous Edam. Do you mean "At last, I feel you are all starting to bow to way way of seeing the world... which is the only way...achtung!"

No, I feel like we've all agreed on the very basic principle that banks should be responsible and have a role to play in society. I thought, given the ding dongs and very strong views expressed on either side, that that was real progress.

Seems that I was being optimistic.

You patronising woman. Progress? Are you on here to educate us all? A lesson in "The World According to Edam"? I'll skip that thanks.

And you still haven't responded to or acknowledged any comments made by anyone who doesn't share your narrow world view. Nor have you apologised to the people whose friends, colleagues and partners you have continuously slagged off. That, my dear, might be progress. If "given the ding dongs and strong views expressed on either side", Edam finally realised there was in fact another perspective.

Have a lie down? I will, in just a minute, when I've enjoyed myself just a little bit more ...

I must say, this thread is a sight more entertaining than breast vs bottle or SAHM vs WOHM.

A bit rich, for you keep-the-bonus cavalry to talk about entrenched attitudes and rigid thinking, when your own idea of high-level debate seems to be talking about anything but the issue at hand:
oooh MrsBaldwin, are you a peasant with a chip on her shoulder?
oooh Edam are you a journalist, I'd like to know what you contribute to society?

But it's not about us is it? Nope - it's about the banks which have been bailed out by the taxpayer and whether or not they should now be publicly accountable, salaries and bonus payments being a potent symbol of the issue.

What I would like to see, I repeat, for those who have allowed the red mist of forum rage to cloud their reading of this thread is:
*bailed out banks to publish their pay-back-the-taxpayer projections and to cap bonuses until the money is returned
*banks and the finance industry in general to incentivise risk-taking differently so as to minimise the chance of a repeat performance of this recession (it depends on whether you subscribe to the economic theory of the right or of the left on whether you think this could ever be effective but still ...)
*the Government/regulators to take advantage of this lull in the performance of the financial services sector to actually do some regulating (which the bonus tax and proposed Tobin tax are examples of, albeit blunt instrument examples)

What is so revolutionary about all that, eh?

Yes, people who work in banks work hard (although on another thread on here somewhere I bet they're all moaning about presenteeism keeping them there unecessarily late). But so do a lot of other people around the UK. Or they did until they lost their jobs...

Do I take seriously the threat that top banking talent will all move to Zurich instead and our economy will be relegated to the sidelines for the rest of all time? No. One or two will leave. Chances are they would have gone anyway when the right job came up. The rest will just grumble loudly and pray that the Tories (who really understand how the City works) will soon be running the country. (NB Will I leave the country if the Tories win in 2010. No. I'll just grumble loudly, possibly on MN, if I haven't managed to wean myself off it by then)

Right, now I really do have to go to bed.

I don't think Edam has said anything personally insulting to anyone, that would be B&S, Cracklin Rosie, Druid and the coffee morning person. A very defensive crowd. Many in the investment arm of RBS realised the error of buying AMRO and were against it but didn't dare speak up in the culture of fear and bullying that operates in the City. This was probably true in many sectors in the years running up to the crash. So many people saw it coming but didn't dare to question bad practice, short termism and the irresponsible gambling that has dominated the finance sector more than any other recently. The failures are systemic as well as individual that's why everyone is resentful. Although I realise that anyone with a credit card or dodgy mortgage is complicit in some way.

Probably many were fearful with families to support etc but others were simply arrogant which is encouraged in an aggressive and competitive work culture cf many others I'm sure, especially in careers that service the efforts of others. It is the refusal to stop and reflect or reassess their work practice that grates. Working a 70 hr week doesn't necessarily make you a better contributor to society just a better contributor to your own family bank balance. Not everyone wants the same things from life or from society that multimillions can buy.

I now await some more insults from the ladies about my poor life choices or whatever. Although they have no idea what these are or even if I am a she or a he!

I haven't insulted any individuals ? much less any posters on this thread. The insults have all been from the pro-bankers.

The rest of us are merely a teeny weeny bit concerned at the behaviour of the banks, given the near-collapse of the world economy.

I tried to extend an olive branch to the 'pro-business as normal for Messrs Million Pound Bonus and their crew' crowd. And got yet more insults in return.

Just proves those in the City and connected with it still don't get it. Amazing. What the hell has to happen before you lot think anything needs to change? Given the near-collapse of Western civilisation doesn't seem to be enough..

2 points of information. first the tobin tax and bonus tax are emphatically not examples of regulation. they are taxes. tax and regulation are different things.

second - this thread does not "prove" anything about the city and those connected with it. you've been conversing with about 5 people.

the things they have objected to is the generalisations about individuals and their morals and integrity. so when their agreement with the completely uncontroversial-to-the-point-of-triteness argument that banks should be responsible -
was met with a declaration of progress they were perhaps a bit perplexed. it wasn;t progress - it was what they'd thought all along and had never disputed. but it clearly suits some people to think otherwise. because they like to put people and their arguments, in nice little boxes so they can easily disagree with them. it's called building a straw man I believe.

A tax is not a regulation - agreed. Thanks Hatwoman for your loan of TippEx.

But a straw man? What, are we all supposed to agree it's ever so complicated and go away stroking our beards to think about it some more, whilst the bailed-out bankers cash in their bonuses for another year? It's not complicated - it's simple. Banks, give the taxpayer back the money it lent you, before you reinstate ginormous bonuses for individual pinstripes - and look at your incentive schemes across the board. Maybe increased salaries/smaller bonuses are in fact a better way to go if that disincentivises internet poker.

As for disagreement, this is the Politics topic. Is each thread supposed to evolve some Boden-wearing Worcester Woman-style opinion? I hope not.

And conversing with 5 people. Well, that's MN, innit? Depends what time of day you post on what topic as to who's reading and who responds. I agree, none of this proves anything at all, although neither does most political debate, which is (in a democracy at least) about slugging it out over the allocation of scarce resources.

Tobin tax to fund climate aid - now that's what I call CSR!

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/11/tax-climate-aid-brown-sarkozy

And I can't resist adding ... Bankers should take heart. It will soon be too hot for them to live in their second homes on the Med anyway ...

perplexed? The word suggests polite puzzlement. Not anger and insults and personal attacks.

My criticisms have been aimed at bankers in general and the system that allows them to get away with it. Not any individuals (although I did have a few choice words for the Rover directors, that is hardly controversial) much less any posters on this thread.

The pro-banker lobby might want to remember it was the industry they are defending so vehemently that brought the world to its knees. Funnily enough quite a lot of people are cross about that - and rightly so given we are paying for that folly.

I thought the City was supposed to be a competitive environment, hadn't realised the financiers and their kin were such sensitive little flowers.

This is all getting a bit tedious.

The straw man to which I refered, Mrs Baldwin, was Edam?s not yours. It was Edam?s incorrect assumption that those she refers to as the pro-bankers didn?t agree with the principle that banks should be responsible ? and didn?t agree that some banks/bankers have not behaved responsibly. They have agreed with that all along. But, as I said, some people seem to find it hard to believe that there are people in banking or connected to banking who think this. Edam, again you show your straw-man type tendencies by saying that there are people on this thread who are ?defending vehemently? an (entire) industry. They?re not. They have accepted its deep flaws and that things need to change. But they reject the stereo-types of all bankers being greedy and incompetent and the idea that all bankers are deserving of opprobrium.

The straw man has, in fact, little to do with concrete constructive argument about what should be done. Mrs Baldwin you listed suggestions on what should be done, with which I agreed.

Re conversing with 5 people ? yep, of course that?s mn. My point was that, contrary to what Edam said, this thread doesn?t prove anything about what (all) those in the city/connected to the city think

?Perhaps a bit perplexed? was intended to be tongue in cheek. Possibly lost in the writing. And I agree there?s no place for personal attacks (and I said as much below).

I have to admit this thread leaves me sad and cross ? as I can feel the dislike and the assumptions about who/what I am, inherent in the label of pro-banking lobby. I am neither pro- nor anti- an entire industry. I do have connections with the city. I have also, I expect you will be surprised to learn, spent my entire working life in the NGO sector, including working on examples of corporate human rights abuses. People rarely fit the boxes some would like them to.

Oh, it's not your fault that people feel like that hatwoman. It's that greedy arrogant element that exists in the banking industry and supplies so much bad pr for all of you

To be a bit pedantic, wasn't it the traders who caused the mess? Trading in toxic loans, the boards and senior management of the banks probably authorised their trading departments and were happy to accept the profits and accolades.

Strange to read today that the drug Tzar of the UN has come out and said that the true saviors of the banks were the drugs barons. These were the guys with huge stashes of actual cash money that were able to keep many of the banks liquid. This has probably been the greatest piece of money laundering in the history of the world.

Thank god they didn't win the war on drugs or we would have lost our blouses.

At the risk of bringing some logic to the discussion...the banks are being subject to more regulation- there have been lots of developments over the last year with the regulators to draft and implement compensation guidelines that do not encourage banks/bankers to take undue risks and pay out money that they cannot afford. These include more equity based/deferred positions, less guaranteed bonuses etc and no paying out bonuses when the bank has made losses. The proposed tax not only doesn't acknowledge this but actually works counter it - banks benefit by having guaranteed bonuses and losses.

Banks had been working to reduce the perceived guarantee by the Government of the banking system- by trying to create the situation where the failure of the banks impacts the investors but doesn't affect the system as such. The tax does nothing to help this.

The tax as well ignores a hugely culpable sector -the unregulated hedge fund sector- and encourages expansion of this sector which I think has the opposite affect to penalising risk taking.

The tax hits banks that didn't take/or have repaid money equally with those that didn't. It is basically a very blunt political tool - designed to win popularity without any concern for an important industry.
I appreciate that people in general look at what bankers earn- generally based on what the press reports- but they need to have the honesty to say this and not come out with empty platitudes about banks taking responsibility which seem to have no detail behind them

oh albino - you seem to what to talk about banking . we were just having a lowest common denominator barney. over stupid things like whether or not bankers "get it" and whether or not all banking is evil.

Not posting with the intention of reigniting this heated thread - just a teensy postscript from today's Times which goes to the heart of some of the stuff we were discussing.

Anatole Kaletsky - Bankers are just bonus-snaffling Marxists Why did financiers think they could get away with rewarding themselves so lavishly? The answer lies in Tito?s Yugoslavia

Holy eff, let's try that link again

Not posting with the intention of reigniting this heated thread - just a teensy postscript from today's Times which goes to the heart of some of the stuff we were discussing.

Anatole Kaletsky -Bankers are just bonus-snaffling Marxists Why did financiers think they could get away with rewarding themselves so lavishly? The answer lies in Tito's Yugoslavia