Well, what did you make of the bankers' apologies? You can read Dan Roberts's minute-by-minute account of the hearing and decide for yourself, but here's a sample of what's being said on the blogosphere:
Apologies carry weight when they are accompanied by a clear explanation by the miscreants of what they did wrong and why. And the problem with the sorrys uttered by the former bosses of Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS is that they lacked a detailed account of why they did what they did. Mistakes were admitted – but motivation was glossed over ... Were their banks gripped by a get-rich-quick bonus culture that led them to take excessive risks in the pursuit of short-term profit? There was a faint nod toward that, but no acknowledgement that the remuneration system that enriched the few at the expense of the many might have been a serious problem.
The MPs' played it well: McFall's headmasterly displeasure, Andrew Tyrie's laser-guided dissection over the sacked whistleblower, Michael Fallon's relentless questioning on the ABN Ambro deal which toppled RBS and [John] Mann's incredulity that the banks and building society had lost their way ... By the end they had uncovered the most important fact of all: that despite desperately wanting to be seen to say sorry, none of the four bankers actually wanted to accept culpability for what had happened. That, after all, could jeopardise their future earnings.
Iain Martin at Three Line Whip:
The bankers currently being grilled have been well-trained to appear as most terribly 'umble. They are grovelling as I write. But it is extraordinary that, unless I've missed it, there has been little mention of what was at the root of this crisis: namely, cheap money.
James Forsyth at Coffee House:
If the bankers summoned to the Commons today, who are undoubtedly intelligent if flawed men, really want to show the public that they are sorry for the harm they have caused they will, like John Profumo after the Profumo affair, dedicate their lives to good works.
Writing before the hearing started, Prescott said an apology would not be enough.
I expect them to be media trained to say they're sorry and show a bit of that "emotional intelligence". (It'll be like the X Factor!) But we don't want RBS to just give us an apology – we want them to give up the bonus.
Field did not write directly about the hearing on his blog today, but – unusually – he made it clear that he's firmly in the Prescott camp when it comes to bonuses.
We do not have to run the banks to give our representatives instructions to cancel all bonuses. The argument these are highly valuable people who will go off elsewhere if we tame them in this way is absurd. Where are they going to go? Unemployment in the financial services is and will become even worse than in other sectors. And as for their contracts? Had taxpayers not risked their future by bailing out the banks these contracts would be as worthless as some of the toxic debt that these bankers have been so busily buying.
If that's not enough, I'd also recommend Matthew Taylor, who has written what may be the definitive guide to evaluating an apology. He's identified nine different categories, ranging from "I am sorry, I knew what I was doing was wrong and I accept personal responsibility for the consequences that have flowed from my action" through to "I am sorry but I had no choice at the time and what has happened since, however terrible, cannot be directly traced to anything I did". Using the Taylor scorecard, he's going to tell us how the bankers did tomorrow.
