The Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: "It seems to me the government should step in and sort it out."

He said Mr Hester was "an able man and doing a good job" but that RBS was "not a normal bank" and there "should be a concept of public service and duty to the wider British public".

The news that 700 extra officers are to swell the Metropolitan Police's numbers is welcome for London - and for the Mayor, as his re-election campaign enters a new phase. Earlier this week, a poll for this paper found that Ken Livingstone had reversed Boris Johnson's earlier lead, with the Labour challenger ahead by two points. Crime has not yet come alive as an issue but was central to the 2008 race. The news on police numbers should bolster the Mayor in an area where he is already ahead: in this week's poll, 24 per cent said Mr Johnson had the best crime plan, against 20 per cent for Mr Livingstone.

Mr Johnson has done well to get more funding for police out of the Treasury: numbers elsewhere in the country are falling. Met police numbers peaked at 33,404 in 2009 and have fallen since, although they still remain higher than when Mr Johnson came to office: at the end of April 2008 the Met's strength was 31, 394. With the 700 new recruits, numbers will climb back to 31,760 and are projected to be well over 32,000 by the end of March.

More police alone does not automatically mean less crime. But Mr Johnson's record on crime has been solid, even though, at least up until now, he has had relatively little control over policing.

Despite rises in robbery and burglary in the past year, the overall crime rate is down, with a particularly large drop in murders. With the new Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime having replaced the Metropolitan Police Authority, it is all the more vital for the Mayor to have a clear vision for policing. Mr Johnson looks credible in this vital area for London.

Let us imagine a British Zuckerberg. He and his fellow billionaires would be the object not just of envy, but of resentment. There would be debates in Parliament, instigated by Ed Miliband, about the scale of his prospective wealth, and whether it was tolerable in a fair society. Wherever he lived, the British Zuckerberg would be tracked down by anti-capitalist protesters, and even now, in all likelihood, the pop-up tents would be appearing on his lawn. His new-found wealth, in short, would not be the subject of simple amazement. It would provoke amazement and a fair degree of rage; and that – to put it mildly – is not a climate that is conducive to wealth creation.

It is one thing to object to bonuses that are explicitly funded by the taxpayer. It is another thing to start attacking “Mammon” of any kind – because as my old schoolmate Ed Miliband has found, it is very hard to make a distinction between “good” enterprises and “bad” enterprises, between good money and bad money, between profit that is socially useful and profit that is not socially useful. In the general confusion, there is a danger that banker-bashing will metastasise into an all-round scorn for all varieties of money-making instinct – and I can’t believe that is in the economic interests of the country.

We need to stop wasting our energy in hating the disgusting affluence of the top 1 per cent, and we need to start doing more for the bottom 20 per cent. The poor and needy will always deserve help, in taxation and in philanthropy – but we can’t expect to generate either, on the scale of the Americans, if we continue to denigrate wealth-creators. In the US, unemployment is now falling sharply, in contrast to Europe and indeed to this country. Jobs are being created, not least because America is full of people who are not only scrabbling to be the next Mark Zuckerberg, but who know that if they make it they will receive admiration from their fellow Americans, rather than chippiness and disgust.

The poor and needy will always deserve help, in taxation and in philanthropy – but we can’t expect to generate either, on the scale of the Americans, if we continue to denigrate wealth-creators.

The Mayor's plan to push for greater control over suburban rail services makes sense. He wants to be put in control of awarding the franchises to run them, thereby essentially bringing them within Transport for London's network and creating a more integrated rail system. This is a long overdue idea, also embraced by Ken Livingstone, who has similar plans to take over rail franchises.

The difference is that, at least under a Conservative government, ministers may be more inclined to respond favourably to such a proposal from Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson calls London St Patrick's Day event 'Lefty Sinn Fein crap'

Outspoken London mayor Boris Johnson has described the city’s St Patrick’s Day gala dinner celebrations linking them to Sinn Fein and branding it "lefty crap".

The Irish community demanded Mr Johnson apologise for his remarks, claiming they were “lazy and stupid”.

In an interview to the ‘New Statesman’ newspaper he said: “. . . And I'll tell you what makes me angry. . . spending £20,000 (€24,000) on a dinner at the Dorchester for Sinn Fein.” Irish community leader in London, Shelagh O'Connor, from Kerry, said Mr Johnson's comments were extremely disrespectful.