Blaming the Bankers

"Yesterday, whilst appearing in front of a House of Commons select committee, the former Managing Director of Woolworths apologised for the collapse of his company. He said "Yep, I can only but apologise to everyone who lost their jobs and for any damage done the wider economy and community as a whole. We really dropped the ball. We just didn't think that having the same busienss plan as the one we were using in the 1980's might create problems for us, but it turns out that people just don't want or need a store that sells a curious combination of pick 'n' mix, cheap plastic toys and radiator keys on their high street anymore."

Of course, this didn't happen - the only people apologising to Parliament (which itself is an organisation that has more that its fair share of apologising to do to the British people) were bankers. And yet there isn't a whole lotta difference between those bankers and those people running Woolies. They all had shit business plans, they all suffered because of that. And because of those flawed business decisions, people lost their jobs, other companies were damaged* and the economy as a whole arguably suffered. Why are one group of people called to Parliament, and the other group not?

The answer is down to how we perceive the banking industry in this country in this day and age. Put simply, your average banker today ranks somewhere between an escaped, drug addict convict and a paedophile in the eyes of many people. They are the nation's new dog to kick.

Don't get me wrong, I know a few bankers, and at least 50% of them are utter wankers. But then again, I know a lot of other professions where at least 50% of them are utter wankers. However, I don't think the real reason why bankers are so hated at the moment is down to the propensity of some bankers to behave like they are second only to God. No, the narrative of the hour is that the bankers caused the financial downturn that we are currently lumbering our way through.

Which is, in part, true. Bankers played a role in the financial downturn, and both national and international economies have suffered from banks collapsing and/or being taken into public ownership. But guess what - many bankers responsible for this will have already suffered for their mistakes. Some will have lost their jobs, others won't be getting their bonuses - which in the financial services sector often makes up a substantial part of their annual remuneration. God help any bankers who have been paid in part with shares in their organisations if those institutions have been part-bought by Gordon Brown et al.

However, others also played a part in crippling the economy. What about the private citizens who borrowed to the hilt, and saddled themselves with massive amounts of debt that they just could not afford? And what about those politicians who fuelled the rush of both banks and citizens to credit they could not afford with talk of the "end to boom and bust?" All those calling for more regulation of the banking sector should take note that this sector is already crippled with regulation, and that regulation - according to the narrative of the governments that created the regulation in the first place - did not work.

Maybe it is a natural part of humanity - that when things turn bad, you lash out and blame an unpopular group. But looking at the cold, hard facts shows that this scape-goating achieves nothing, and makes no real sense, other than fulfilling a base and craven desire to blame someone categorically for negative events.

*The collapse of Zavvi can be traced back to the failure of Woolies.