Friday, 27 February 2009

A cavalier indifference to the nation's good

Both Capitalists at Work and the Telegraph team quickly spotted the signs of government spin yesterday, with Goodwin's pension details leaked to cover what would otherwise have been the top news stories - the FSA's confirmation that Gordon's fingerprints are all over his Boom and Bust, and the scale of RBS' losses, with Lloyds to come today.

Myners released his letters, and in retaliation Goodwin released his. The egg rebounded to splatter on the government's face. Yes, the size of Goodwins pension is so morally wrong, but so legally right, and the government agreed it.

This is a government that considered at cabinet level the pay-off and pension of Sharon Shoesmith, and proclaimed publicly that they would ensure she didn't benefit from her incompetence. Those sums are chicken feed in comparison to the package they agreed for Goodwin; it's simply not credible to claim they didn't consider his pension pot. They did. And at the time they thought it reasonable.

Brown stoked the boom, and leashed the FSA to allow his banking foxes free run amongst the nation's assets, for personal political advantage. He exhibited a cavalier indifference to the nation's good. He's been not only incompetent, but wilfully culpable, wilfully negligent and criminally reckless. When the electors summarily dismiss him, who will do to him what he did to Sharon Shoesmith? Who will block any pay-off to Brown? Who will seek to reduce his pension pot? No-one of course. Only bankers and social services directors are held responsible - the political class make damn sure that their own don't face financial penalties for wrongdoing.

The real injustice is not the size of Goodwin's pension, but of Brown's.

4 comments:

Budgie said...

It wasnae me. It was the bankers. It was the Tories. It was Redwood. It was the Americans. It wasnae me. It was Thatcher. I am surrounded by fools. It was the globe. It wasnae me.

Spent Copper said...

Spot on Raedwald. This is all about trying to bury Labour's incompetence and strike a pose with its Old Labour and Trade Union Class Warriors. The frustrating thing is that, like you, I find the scale of his pension completely out of line with his performance, but if this is what was agreed to, and it was a legal contract, then as far as I am concerned that's it.

One point has struck me though. I wonder if anyone who could show to have suffered by the action he took as the boss would be able to take an action in Tort to claim off him? Worth thinking about perhaps.

Bill Quango MP said...

Thanks for the link. Agree with your post 100%

it's either banned or compulsory said...

While disgraceful the Freds Pension furure is clearly just a smokescreen and something for the press to hone in on , the blame game.

I half expected The Suns headline

" SHRED FRED "