Sticky-fingered chancers

So we'll reserve any criticism of him on this score until he turns up at the despatch box to explain why publication is neither feasible nor helpful.

Ombudsman Sir David Walker, who proposed greater transparency over banking-sector remuneration, produced his own back-of-a-fag-packet calculation to suggest about 1,000.

Sir David was of the view that, if shareholders knew this, they would cross-examine bank bosses very rigorously.

Given that most bank shareholders are corporate bodies interested only in the size of half-yearly dividends, to expect bosses to be skewered by razor-sharp questioning at annual general meetings is a little fanciful.

High annual profits, shareholder dividends and breath-taking bonuses for the select few are all closely linked.

Whether or not Osborne implements the Walker proposals, confirming widespread suspicions that a small number of people are becoming seriously rich as a result of financial speculation would make little difference to most of us.

The fact remains that neither this government nor its predecessor is upset by the finance sector's parasitism on the rest of society.

British Bankers Association chief executive Angela Knight has the difficult job of trying to persuade us that bankers do a good job for the country and are inadequately regarded in return.

This former Tory MP - now there's a surprise! - was at it again on Monday.

She reacted to a BBC investigation showing that the escalating expense of bank loans, mortgages and credit cards, expressed in the margin between the cost to banks of borrowing from the government and the cost to customers of borrowing from banks, with a blizzard of theoretical maths.

It all added up to people not appreciating the exorbitant cost of retaining a bank in business in Britain, Knight suggested.

Banks had to leave higher deposits with the Bank of England, which was essentially dead money, she suggested.

Knight failed to acknowledge that the reason for this measure was the events of recent years when many banks overstretched themselves, fell flat on their faces and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

And barely a year on, profits are sky-high again, bonuses are at record levels and shareholders are doing very well for themselves, thank you.

And the voice of the banks had the nerve to warn us earlier this summer that, if we didn't go easy on our bankers, many of these "internationally mobile" high-flyers might leave Britain.

The only people suffering at both ends of the spectrum are the usual mugs, the taxpayer, you and I.

We are having our purchasing power squeezed by the higher cost of borrowing, often forced by refusal to offer reasonably priced loans to use credit cards with their usurious rates.

And then we are told that our public services are to face the chop to slash the spending deficit caused by "our" profligacy.

We must indeed be mugs to let these sticky-fingered chancers and their political snake oil salesmen get away with it.

At the very least, the banks should be facing windfall and transaction taxes, but the only way to halt the gravy train, make business and domestic credit available and bring down the costs of finance is to nationalise the entire sector.