How to turn the vampire squid into something cuddly

Then, Rolling Stone describes the bank as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jabbing its blood funnel into anything that smells of money".

Further attacks follow, all in a similar vein. Now comes news that Goldman is seeking a PR expert to try to restore its scarred image.

I've got something to say to Lloyd Blankfein, the group chairman. If you want clients, including governments, to feel comfortable using you; if you want to continue to attract good recruits; if you don't want to hang your head at dinner parties as you mutter that you work for Goldman Sachs; you'd better act fast.

You've got to remove the superiority that hangs over the place. The world has moved on from being in awe of an institution that holds 50 interviews for one job and likes to proclaim it only hires the very best. Likewise, your much-vaunted alumni network. Get rid of it. All it does is invite suspicion that executives who left, and are now holding down top posts elsewhere, are supplying Goldman with work. Stop appearing like a cult — it doesn't do you any favours.

Give something back. Yes, I know you will say that lots of your colleagues are generous individual donors to loads of good causes. So what? Frankly, it's no use their doing that unless they all do it and society knows that they do. It's also not much good in terms of your enemies, the bank pushing initiatives across the world.

Your 10,000 Women programme — promoting business education and opportunities for women in developing and emerging markets — is entirely worthy and to be applauded. But Africa isn't where your trouble lies — or where your shareholders, customers and would-be trainees reside (although, while we're at it, some more women at the top of the bank would send a more encouraging signal, in keeping with your 10,000 Women campaign).

You're getting flak in your own backyard, in New York and London. Here's an idea: do something that nobody can argue with. Why not takeover the funding of Great Ormond Street Hospital, say? And do the same for an equivalent institution in New York?

You may laugh, but think about it. You're suddenly the bank that provides for the care of sick children, not the bank that just pays itself a fortune. It's that sort of move you need to be thinking of — not a quiet PR push that sees you getting positive mentions here and there.

Already there are worrying signs where you are headed — emphasising you pay £2 billion tax in the UK, for instance. The last institution that made a habit of declaring loudly how much it paid in tax was the Royal Bank of Scotland. The weakness with this line is that we all pay tax and none of us trusts the Government to spend it wisely. As for voicemails telling colleagues not to make high-profile purchases. Please. They're bound to leak and invite ridicule. And when does a low-profile buy become high profile?

No. You've got to take charge. Grab something that touches chords everywhere by the scruff of the neck. Set a new standard for corporate philanthropy. You need to knock your critics back. Go on, blast 'em. We're not talking giving it all away; it's not even big money in your terms. You will continue to enjoy massive surpluses and rewards — except now you've got another purpose, beyond personal and shareholder enrichment.

You own capitalism; now, make it your aim to own moral capitalism as well. Heavens, you might find you enjoy it. And you know what? Nobody could call you a giant vampire squid any more. Go on, give it a try.

Cloudcuckooland MPs should be hung

THERE'S an alarming tendency among even serious people I know to think it's all over, that recovery is with us and very soon, we will be returning to the paradise of yesteryear.

Unfortunately, that ignores one salient aspect: the deteriorated condition of Britain's national finances. We're in a state of common denial.

Increasingly, it looks as though the Tories will form the next government — the latest opinion polls put them on a 16% lead, which gives them a 150-seat majority. But they've also achieved it by hiding from the truth. David Cameron may have detoxified the Conservative brand, to shake-off the "nasty party" tag but he has managed it largely by spin. There are no real Tory policies in place, just a few platitudes. He's also taken deeply contradictory positions — witness, he is going to cut spending sharply but the NHS is safe in his hands, which means more spending.

The problem for all the main political parties these days is that they are too frightened to confront reality or to take tough unpopular measures needed for the long term. So Tony Blair baulked at welfare reform in the early part of his regime, when low unemployment and strong public finances would have made it easier. The move would have been controversial and also, Gordon Brown opposed it. Labour dithered on nuclear power for far too long and in the mid-2000s, with the economy steaming ahead, they did nothing to rein in the boom and reduce public spending.

Would a Cameron government prove more decisive even with a huge majority? Flip-flopping on issues hardly inspires confidence that it will.

I'm beginning to think a hung Parliament might be the answer. It's usually derided as a recipe for weak rule but not if it's a national government in the manner of the Thirties, which can slash budgets and make tough choices. It should be seen as an emergency government (and please, don't tell me we are not in an emergency).

We need some radical thinking on public spending. It will take a national government to take that forward without having to keep the usual weather eye on opinion polls. Oh, and it also means there is a place at the Cabinet table for Vince Cable.

What the Tube really needs is a breath of French air

MAYOR Boris Johnson brands potential delays in completing the Jubilee Line upgrade by the Tube Lines contractor as "unacceptable."

His condemnation follows hard on the collapse of the other private finance operator, Metronet, which may cost taxpayers up to £410 million.

Boris should cross the Channel and see the upgrade of the Paris Metro's Line 1. Their version of the Central line, it passes west-east under the centre of Paris and is the busiest line on Europe's busiest underground, carrying 250 million passengers a year.

But by 2012, Line 1 will have driverless trains and be operated by a staff of just six from a central control room. If it wanted to, Paris could use all the same excuses transport managers in London trot out for never getting anything done - like most of our routes, Line 1 is old (it opened in 1900), like ours, it is very crowded, like ours, it is in service for 20 out of every 24 hours.

However, unlike in London, where months of weekend closures are needed to replace so much as a station's platform tiles, the entire line is being upgraded with almost no disruption whatever to the normal service. The automatic trains will come gradually into operation, not in a big bang launch, running alongside the existing driver-operated ones. It will cost £128 million for alterations to platforms, plus £343 million for the new trains. In London, £128 million is the amount TfL is proposing to spend on providing step-free access (to the platforms but not to the actual trains) at just three of its 280 stations.

The Paris bill should also be compared with the £9 billion so far spent on London's Tube PPP, with almost nothing to show for it.

Boris, pull your hair out and weep.