A bizarre role reversal in the fat-cattery debate

It was King who on Northern Rock was reluctant to reward the reckless behaviour of the bankers. It was Brown who pushed for a private sale. Last week, it was King who attacked the City bonus culture while Brown stayed silent. It's not just in relation to the Bank and Downing Street where there is role reversal.

The boss of employers' organisation the CBI also seems more left-leaning than the Labour leader. CBI directorgeneral Richard Lambert has also rounded on the City and its remuneration structure.

So the Bank of England and the CBI are more vitriolic in their condemnation of financial greed than Brown. All it needs now is for Her Majesty to curl her lip in the direction of the Square Mile and Brown's isolation will be complete.

His hands are tied. Unlike King and Lambert, he is actually dependent upon the bonus boys (and occasional girl). He needs their taxes, both personal and corporate. He requires their input into his clever off-balance sheet scheming, known as the private finance initiative.

Without them, he is all too aware, he would be in a far worse mess. Heavens, there may be a bit of him that fancies a sinecure with one of them, same as his predecessor. After all, he won't be in office for ever - not for very long at all at the rate he is going - and he's got a wife and two young boys to provide for.

Let's face it, there's nobody else, is there? He can hardly take a retainer advising the Scottish shipbuilding industry or the coalmines or the engineers - they're all long gone. No, as Tony Blair found with JPMorgan, the City offers the most lucrative, international future.

Someone else who is also aware of the bankers' vice-like grip is Lord Jones. As Sir Digby, he was in Lambert's chair before him. Now a minister, he has called for bonuses to carry on regardless. But then Digby knows all about City pay. After leaving the CBI and before joining the Government, he was a senior adviser to Barclays Capital, home of the omnipotent Bob Diamond, recipient of total pay worth £36 million last year but also responsible for the part of Barclays that lost £1.6 billion taking risks on subprime.

It's a curious state of affairs, and one I predict is only going to become even more bizarre. Take the banks away from Britain, and there is nothing left. Brown knows that.

Already, he has had four companies make plain their desire to relocate overseas. That's bad enough. But if the banks were to retrench, he would have to think seriously about turning off the economy's lights. So, as far as the lifelong socialist in charge is concerned, the bumper payouts are safe for a good while yet.

There could be another reason why Brown is hanging back. When the row about private equity blew up last year, he reacted in haste. He reformed capital gains and moved against the nondomiciles, many of whom are to be found in private equity. Both measures backfired spectacularly.

Having been bitten twice, he's not going to make the same mistake a third time. Neither, I suspect, is he going to be allowed to. Since he committed that dual calamity, he's acquired a new chief of staff - Stephen Carter, who hails from Brunswick, the leading City public relations agency that rewards its staff through bonuses and is dependent upon the investment banks and their bonus-driven deals for much of its income.

No, there is no danger of Brown leading a charge against City pay. The Governor of the Bank of England and the director-general of the CBI more critical of corporate fat-cattery than a Labour prime minister - who would have thought it?