If I were running a big international bank with substantial operations in London (no need to cheer that I'm not, thank you very much) I'd be a little bit depressed that the government's super-tax on bonuses has not been attacked on principle by either of the main opposition parties.

It's true that Vince Cable, the Lib Dem's economics force-of-nature, grumped yesterday about the levy, but only that he felt it had more holes for bankers to slip through than vintage Emmental.
Having read the HMRC's technical note [128KB PDF] on it this morning, I'm not sure he's quite right. That said, the low yield expected by the Treasury from the tax - some £550m - is something of a puzzle.
As I mentioned in a note last week (RBS board to quit if chancellor vetoes £1.5bn in bonuses), Royal Bank of Scotland was expecting to pay bonuses just to its investment bankers of £1.5bn for their performance in 2009.
On the reasonable assumption that the bulk of the £1.5bn would consist of bonuses greater than the tax threshold of £25,000, RBS's bonuses would deliver more than £550m in tax just on their own.
What's more, RBS was by no means planning to be a particularly generous bonus-payer.
Inevitably RBS will now suspend its bonus plans, till it can evaluate what its competitors will do.
But the Treasury's forecast of what it expects to receive from the tax implies either that it expects banks to massively reduce their bonus payments or to find ways of avoiding the new tax on them.
Actually there is a further possible explanation - which is that a truly astonishing number of those earning the big bucks in the City are not resident here for tax purposes.
Certainly many international banks have a policy of rotating their top staff around the world so that they are never in one place long enough to become liable for local taxes.
Even so, the point of greater interest for those who run big banks is surely that no politician with clout - except for the Mayor of London, Boris "the bank lover" Johnson - felt able to stand up yesterday to defend the banks and their bonuses. And even Johnson's defence was feeble by his standards.
So some bankers may rage at what they see as an infringement of their Magna Carta right to pay themselves what they like, but it should give them pause for thought that they have become so marginalised in our society that even the most ardent supporters of liberal capitalism will not rally to their cause.
To put it mildly, this is not healthy. It can't be a recipe for either economic success or social stability that the guardians of our savings and the providers of finance for households and businesses are untouchable outcasts.
We would all benefit from a rapprochement.
The question is how it can be achieved.
Banks and bankers could retaliate by taking themselves to financial centres where they'll be more welcome.
And, of course, there are such places.
But Britain is not the only country mulling a one-off tax on bonuses and may not be the last to impose one.
It is striking that the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, today put his name alongside Gordon Brown's to an article in the Wall Street Journal which says "we agree that a one-off tax in relation to bonuses should be considered a priority, due to the fact that bonuses for 2009 have arisen partly because of government support for the banking system".
What Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling would dearly love to see would be the American's imposing some kind of cap on 2009 bonuses.
Well the history of bitter rivalry between Wall Street and the City of London would suggest that's not very likely - especially with Congressional elections looming and candidates so dependent on contributions from the financial sector.
It would be wrong however to characterise the US as the home of anything-goes remuneration: the US Treasury's so-called "pay czar", Kenneth Feinberg, has imposed pretty swingeing restraints on the remuneration of employees in businesses that have received substantial amounts of government assistance.
What's to be done?
Well a number of bank chief executives and chairman have said to me in private that they accept the argument that their profits for 2009 contain a substantial windfall element, generated by the exceptional measures taken by central banks and finance ministries to limit the damage from a recession partly caused by reckless bankers.
Perhaps if a few of them said this more loudly in public, and created the conditions for a voluntary moratorium on big bonuses by the industry, they'd be allowed out of the gulag of their own construction.
What would be in it for the bankers? Well political leaders might I suppose adapt one of David Cameron's catchphrases and call on us all to hug a banker.
Just think of the catharsis, as we wept together over the economic vandalism of the past few years - for which we may all share some responsibility (although some are plainly more to blame than others).