Barclays Defence

The papers were full the other day of rumours that Bob Diamond was going to unleash a righteous fury on politicians and the Bank of England.

Yet he turned out to be an insignificant pipsqueak in his own production. His repeated attempts to avoid questions by saying that he agreed a handful of traders had done reprehensible and wrong things (how many times did he feel he had to say these things?), just annoyed the Committee who told him to answer properly; they were not interested in hearing his bleatings again.

Pursued until he answered, we found that Mr. Diamond had only found out about the rate rigging this month. Yet there was a massive investigation going on, costing £100 million apparently, of which he was 'aware' (surely something that big would catch his attention? Or is £100 million really such a small matter?) and then there was the legal action against Barclays.

It was drawn from him that a matter of the bank being the subject of legal action would have been brought to the boards attention. and that the bank was in fact subject of such an action, in April, for £36 million over damage caused by rate rigging. Yet this had no impact on the wonderful Mr. Diamond?


It was also mentioned that once a trader had stood up and shouted that he was going to under quote rates and asked if anyone had a problem with that. I'm pretty sure that if there wasn't a general acceptance that this was going on, if it was not part of the culture of this bank and indeed banking in general, then I would hazard that this man would not have been so public.

The implications of this event however, seemed to entirely evade Mr. Diamond; he continued to deplore the actions of fourteen among many thousands. He was unaware of the rate rigging. He abhorred it. Similarly, he didn't seem to see any responsibility by implying that these people were acting in this horrific way, merely for their own benefit, their own greed, as if the bank, his bank, the one he ran hadn't set up the way the bonuses worked.

At every turn Diamond came across as a pretty close rendition of an idiot. In fact I feel I would make a good replacement for him; I too know nothing of the workings of Barclay's Capital but I am not a corrupt or greedy person. That puts me streets ahead I think.

Although I do have some insight into the City, anecdotal but revealing nonetheless I feel. In the Nineties I worked for a company that was a preferred recruitment supplier to Barclays Capital. They made us jump through a few hoops to get the status, as of course, they were a prestige client. So we signed a contract and they gave us regular lists of their 100+ IT vacancies.

Then the list stopped coming. We chased and chased, phoning and leaving messages but with no success. Eventually, one of the HR people took the call and said we had been removed as a preferred supplier due to non performance (we hadn't been doing well, quite honestly). I asked why no-one had called us about the issue, called us in for a meeting? She said, they didn't want to tell us because they thought we might argue! This was the powerful HR department of the prestige client Barclays Capital! And they did this even though the contract included a month's notice, which of course hadn't been honoured.

That was the quality of Barclays Capital. On another occasion I attended a 'recruitment day' at a bank (possibly Deutsche) where a succession of IT Managers talked about their departments and their needs, to a room full of recruiters (and their HR). I remember one, the Network Manager quite well. He was a right geezer. In a broad Lahndun accent he described his group. He wanted people who were motivated and talented and he kept talking about blokes, until he corrected himself saying, 'it could be a girl, if they are OK abaht a bit of banter and muck in an' 'at'.

Methinks their houses were built on sand.

Bob 'Diamond' Diamond

Iain Martin in the Telegraph today says he has a sliver of sympathy for Bob Diamond because Nick Clegg has had a go at him. Pretty stupid remark to make really, even if the actual intention was to say that Nick Clegg is wrong about everything (true though that may be). He supports his anti Clegg rant by saying (even more stupidly) that Bob Diamond built up Barclay's Capital from scratch.

Not perhaps in the same way Virgin was built from scratch. When a mainstream, 'big four' (as they were) bank decides to set up a new arm they don't start with a market stall. Anyway, enough of not very bright remarks by people who are paid for their comments.

Bob Diamond has resigned to spend more time with his lawyers. Sometime soon we are going to be treated to the vanishing job role that we always see in such cases. Bob Diamond gets paid the big bucks because he is the inspiration in the company, he makes it successful (let alone built it from scratch), right up until something untoward happens. Then, his job doesn't involve him knowing what the company does day to day or where the money comes from.

In fact you would have a job pinning down exactly what he does do at Barclays now. He once said that the buck stops with him, but I'm guessing that is not the reason he has resigned, no noble and principled stand involved. No, I'd be willing to bet that he has checked the wind and knows that this is the scandal the politicians have been waiting for.

Similar to their expenses scandal, involving as it does a sort of institutionalised theft through an entitlement belief, but one for which they can act outraged. Naturally they didn't want (nor understand) the fuss over their own misdemeanour's, but bankers make an excellent foil.

Politicians generally tried to keep a lid on the banker bashing over the financial collapse because they were too closely associated with it to make capital (no pun intended). But now, they are hoping they have a stand alone reason to attack someone, anyone to focus national anger, as a sort of cathartic process.

So Bob knows that the politicians will be happy to see him locked up and has exited the scene of the crime early. He may well even be looking for somewhere with no extradition agreement with the UK or the US, as they seem pretty annoyed too. Or won't it come to that? Is a fix under way behind the scenes?

It seems inordinately difficult to find a law that stops banks from lying and ripping off it's clients. Strange, because there are laws that cover everything the common man in the street does down to how he is permitted to think. Strange 'oversight' don't you think? Hints at that awful word collusion again does it not?

The Left has ruled the roost politically for a long time now, with a particular line in claptrap aimed at the 'failure of capitalism'. It isn't capitalism that has failed it is the rise of corporatism, which sees ultimate form the the cosy relationships of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the likes of Bob Diamond. We know what needs curing, it is just that the people who benefit from the corruption are the ones with their hands on the reins of power. A powerful reason as to why the parties control politics and why there is almost no difference between them.