Mr Blatherskite can detect the noise of his loyal readers loading brickbats even as he asks the question. But here goes. Last autumn Sir Fred Goodwin, CEO of Royal Bank of Scotland, agreed to resign and forgo his bonus (ridiculous obviously, but somehow or other he was entitled to one) as part of the price the bank had to pay to be bailed out by the taxpayer. At the time the damage was thought to be rather less than it is now. The Government then owned no shares in RBS so his termination package (pension) was settled by the board ("there goes a bit more money, no problem"). As we now know this included a £16m pension pot, equating to £650,000 for life (assuming he doesn't last past 75 presumably). But anyone in the Government, City minister Lord Myners is being fingered for this one, could easily have found out how much pension Fred mighthave been eligible for. By reading the annual report for example. But they didn't and Goodwin got away with it. But should he now waive his pension rights along with the bonus etc? Former Labour deputy leader John Prescott, who's now happily crusading against City fat cats, was on the wireless this morning saying he should although, as ever, Prescott was a touch woolly on the detail. Prompted by Today's Evan Davis he agreed that the bank could just refuse to pay it and leave Goodwin to sue. But put like that it sounds a bit mean and dirty. Maybe Goodwin will do a deal but what the hell is a reasonable pension for someone who screwed up like he did (albeit with the support of his board)? £50,000 a year? £50 a week? If there's one thing this farrago does clearly demonstrate it's that governments should not be running banks. Politicians are interested in three things: hanging on to their jobs (and pensions), today's headlines and trying to avoid having to stand up in the House and admit they were wrong. Short term doesn't even begin to describe it. Which is no way to run a bank, as we all know now.