Who Are These People?

By nature I am conservative (with a small ‘c’). If I could choose the socio-economic system that has the most appeal for social equality, respect and fairness it would be communism. The principle of ‘from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs’ suits my ideals very well.

Unfortunately, this system won’t work, cannot work and has proven itself unworkable. Capitalism delivers - after a fashion.

Why should this be? People. People, on the whole, do not exist by principles. Society, in its most general meaning, is comprised of characters that range from Mother Theresa to Adolf Hitler. There are those with little who would give their last penny and those with much who would take it. It has always been thus and I can see no reason why it will not remain so. As a realist, I consider we must therefore work with what we are rather than what we wish we were.

It is quite understandable that anyone should aspire to financial stability so that they and their family should not want. So the essential principles of capitalism are natural and not to be despised - but avarice and raw greed, that, surely, is something else. When I think of the huge fortunes being amassed by relatively few people, even as a pragmatist I find myself appalled. And there are even those who, while making more money than most of us can imagine, are prepared to risk the savings of others, and even break the law, in order to increase their personal wealth.

Why? I honestly don’t know. As I commented earlier - it takes all kinds.

However, a scene from one of Humphrey Bogart’s films - Key Largo - comes to mind. The bad guy, Johnny Rocco, played by Edward G Robinson, has taken over a hotel during a violent storm and is terrorising those sheltering inside. The hotel owner cannot understand what the villain is trying to achieve.

Johnny Rocco: There’s only one Johnny Rocco.
James Temple: How do you account for it?
Frank McCloud: He knows what he wants. Don’t you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Sure.
James Temple: What’s that?
Frank McCloud: Tell him, Rocco.
Johnny Rocco: Well, I want uh …
Frank McCloud: He wants more, don’t you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Yeah. That’s it. More. That’s right! I want more!
James Temple: Will you ever get enough?
Frank McCloud: Will you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Well, I never have. No, I guess I won’t. You, do you know what you want?
Frank McCloud: Yes, I had hopes once, but I gave them up.
Johnny Rocco: Hopes for what?
Frank McCloud: A world in which there’s no place for Johnny Rocco.

Is this the way it is, I wonder? They want more, as simple as that.

So Stephen Hester takes a job ’sorting out’ RBS after the previous incumbent, Fred Goodwin, fell asleep at the helm while the ship ran onto the rocks. (Mr Goodwin was presumably not ‘One Of The Best’ but he still got paid as if he was.) Mr Hester will get £1.2 million per annum plus a few extras that will take him up to £9.6 million. This is on the proviso that he doubles the share price of RBS. Was it not this kind of contract that caused the problem in the first place?

£1,200,000 per year. Plus incentives. Plus expenses, of course. Can you imagine how the deal was negotiated?

The Government: Hello Stephen, we need to try to sort RBS out, or at least to make an effort. Fancy a shot?

Stephen Hester: I’ll give it a go. What’s the offer?

TG: What would you like?

SH: Whatever you have in mind plus a lot more.

TG: That sounds fair.

And this is all happening while the gap between rich and poor in the UK and the world grows ever wider. And the money for the rich doesn’t come from falling stardust. It comes from the rest of the global community. If these people actually had to collect their millions by knocking on the doors of ordinary people, many of whom are living on a pittance, I wonder if they would be quite so self-assured. I am seriously beginning to doubt whether capitalism is more virtue than vice. It seems to be a system where the Johnny Roccos are feeling right at home.

(And I note that, according to The Sunday Times business section, city firms are drawing up schemes to help staff dodge the new 50% tax rate. Doesn’t really require comment, does it?)

Quotes (from The Sunday Times):

• An urgent investigation has been ordered into whether rules aimed at preventing lying parents from flouting the schools admissions system should be toughened.

• Harrow council dropped its case…because they were unsure that the Fraud Act would cover admissions cases.

• Their decision exposes the lack of legislation to prosecute school admission cheats and may lead to middle-class parents becoming more brazen in their attempts to colonise the best schools.

• Council leaders said they were considering using perjury laws in future cases…….

(These are quotes from the reporters and my italics.)

So no stone is being left unturned to find a way to persecute – oops, prosecute – lying, fraudulent, cheating and brazen parents who are callously intent on getting their children the best education.

And if that doesn’t get the desired results there are always the anti-terrorist laws. Pour encourager les autres, perhaps?

(Note. The mother in question has now put her child into a private school. That still leaves a lot of poor people to browbeat, though.)