Almost a winter storm of articles about banking in the guardian today.

here is another one: Is David Cameron’s kid-glove treatment of the City remotely justified, when it neither pays its way nor lends effectively?

Here Aditya Chakrabortty coins the phrase ‘Bankocracy’ to describe 21st century Britain – and what an accurate picture he paints.

In a poorer country, the cosiness of relations between bankers and politicians would be scrutinised by an official from the World Bank and disdainfully pronounced as pure cronyism. In Britain, we need to come up with a new word for this type of dysfunctional capitalism – where banks neither lend nor pay their way in taxes, yet retain a stranglehold on policy-making. We could try bankocracy: ruled by the banks, for the banks.

What are the results of bankocracy? It means that the main figures arguing for a Robin Hood tax are the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Bill Nighy. It means that opposition to the rule of banks isn’t found in Westminster, but in tents outside St Paul’s or among a few grizzled academics and NGO-hands – with no political vehicle to carry them. Meanwhile, the politicians declare that the national interest of Britain can be defined by what suits one square mile of it

I think Aditya doesn’t do movements like Positive Money justice in her last paragraph – but overall who could argue with the article?