Spare a thought for Jim Allister and the TUV

Spare a thought for the leader of the Traditional Unionist Voice, Jim Allister. 

Having left the DUP following the St. Andrews agreement, which he maintained was a “u” turn by them after they promised not to go into government with terrorists, he is now scratching his head as he watches Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness stand shoulder to shoulder condemning the terrorists.

The head-scratching becomes more furious as he reads that unionist supporters are praising Martin McGuiness.  Shock horror, one unionist supporter even said he was proud of Mr. McGuinness.  They have not only forgiven the godfather of yesterday’s terror, they have made him into a hero.  Can this really be part of God’s plan?

Not surprisingly, the TUV is doing its utmost to persuade potential supporters that there is no difference (in terms of evil wrong-doing) between what has just happened and what happened in the past.

“the murder of David Johnston by the IRA in June 1997 was just as wrong as these recent killings. This is a point which Martin McGuinness will not be making”

One political point which the TUV is trying to exploit is Sinn Fein’s opposition to the stepping up of security with the use of the Army.  Jim Allister says this

“Sadly, I fear, the political expediency of not offending IRA/Sinn Fein sensitivities will fetter such an essential response and, therefore, more brave policemen and soldiers will be sacrificed.”

That point is slightly inaccurate.  There probably will be more murders but that will have been nothing to do with Sinn Fein’s opposition to the use of troops.  Sinn Fein does not make any decisions on security.  So long as that remains the case, Sinn Fein’s anomalous view of security is unlikely to have any political impact.  

Whatever happened to the puritanical protestant community?  It is still there but it has now become much more adaptable.  Political views have been reconciled with moral consciousness.  There are now very few who have not come to terms with the trade off that was necessary to obtain peace.  

Most DUP supporters are quite content to draw the line under the distinction that today, Martin McGuinness and Sinn Fein are no longer part of an organisation which conducts terror.  As long as no evidence turns up to the contrary, Jim Allister and the TUV will not be able to gain any political capital out of the recent atrocities.

A new strain of ‘Cash for Honours’ sweeps the Labour Party

The Labour Party’s embarrassment over the handling of Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension has reached new heights.  Now, MP’s have called for moves to strip him of his knighthood.  

This is not quite a “cash for honours” scandal but it is from the same scandal family.  One might call it the “ditch the honour for keeping the cash” scandal.

The story goes back to October last year when Lord Myners was brought into the Cabinet by Gordon Brown as Financial Services Secretary (nickname “City Minister”).  The main part of his brief was administering the Government’s 500bn bank rescue package.  Almost immediately, he was involved in the bailout of Royal Bank of Scotland.  

Part of the bailout package included the removal of Sir Fred Goodwin from the RBS board.  Just one little fact which spices up this story even further is that Lord Myners was a director of Nat West until it was taken over by RBS in 2000.  

One result of the Government’s bailout package was that a pension pot of £693,000 per annum from the age of 50 (worth 16 million) was negotiated as a settlement for Sir Fred Goodwin.  Lord Myners could have called for the board of RBS to sack Sir Fred.  He did not, nor did he know the precise details of the settlement until after it had been agreed.  He has rightly been criticized for his failure of attention to detail.  

The Labour Party has been squirming ever since.  It asked for Sir Fred not to take the money (which he was never going to agree to) when it became clear that there was no legal form of redress to take it back.  

Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy Leader has twice made herself an object of ridicule over the issue.  Recently she said  

“The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law but it’s not acceptable in the court of public opinion, and that’s where the Government steps in.” 

The result of her comments was to increase public support for Sir Fred.  It gets worse than that though.  Two weeks ago, Harriet Harman was forced to apologize to the House of Commons for stating that Sir Fred’s knighthood was granted for charitable work when it was actually for ..er..  his services to the Banking Industry. 

And so the comedy of errors continues. Is the Labour Party going to try and blackmail Sir Fred?  Somehow, I think that if Sir Fred is given the choice of keeping the Knighthood or the cash, he’ll keep the cash.