However, I find the government’s approach to the issue objectionable. The government appears to be bullying Sir Fred Goodwin. It is using its profile, access to the media and position of power to try and publicly persuade Goodwin not to take his pension. Goodwin is not a criminal and as a private individual does not have the power or influence to fight back against this onslaught.

Sir Fred is not breaking the law in taking his pension. The company he presided over was not found to have acted in a fraudulent manner. Although exceptionally bad in its outcome, its business model was not exceptional. It was in line with others and (importantly) within the regulatory expectations overseen by the Financial Services Authority and HM Treasury.

Sir Fred is out of touch with public opinion. He is a banker so this shouldn’t be unexpected. The government can claim that its approach merely reflects popular opinion. But the government did not question senior executives’ remuneration when times were good. Indeed, it often ran the other way when such arguments were raised.

The government’s attempts to be populist are embarrassing. It lacks emotional intelligence at the best of times – only last week Gordon Brown referred to Jane Goody. Its attempts to be on the side of popular opinion, given its two-faced track record on this issue, feel like the behaviour of an absent parent sucking up to their child: the short term attention may be nice but you know which parent really looks after you.

The government is, of course, the majority owner of RBS. Few other shareholders are able to command the air time to question the pay of company bosses. Few others would have so little power over the company they owned that they would need to. And wouldn’t a private owner be frankly embarrassed that their due diligence was so poor that they hadn’t pre-empted this issue?

As the majority owner of the company, is Goodwin’s payoff really the best example of corporate excess that it can find? Yes, £16m is a lot of money and taxpayers want to know that it is being well spent. But it’s not like governments haven’t wasted the odd £16m here and there. And £16m as a proportion of the RBS loss of £24bn is insignificant. Wouldn’t it be better if the government focussed on ensuring this business is turned around – or even looked at a comprehensive waste-cutting programme?

I do not agree with Goodwin’s payment for failure. However, the spectre of the government picking on a private individual in this way is unpleasant.

Related posts:

1. David Cameron is a hypocrite
2. 5 better proposals for better government
3. Retired mandarins more problem than solution to better government