A few links about the release of the “Lockerbie bomber”

As a blogger, I am still finding my voice. Blogs like In Place of Fear are an inspiration; it is a fantastic blog. Unfortunately, it is criminally undervalued, according to Google Reader it only has three subscribers!

The latest post by Duncan McFarlane (In Place of Fear) is about the release of the “Lockerbie bomber” - (*as is this more recent one). Along with offerings on this topic by Beau Bo D'Or, John Pilger, Paul Mason , septicisle (Obsolete) (parts 1,2,3&4) and this Gerald Scarfe cartoon, it forms my recommended reads on the topic. (Craig Murray offers more of the same).

Update

*Pink links added retrospectively.

This is old but true.

(Accidental) Honesty vs. Less bad economic management

Conservative Health spokesperson, Andrew Lansley, let slip that the Conservatives plan to ring-fence health and aid spending at the expense of a 10% cut for other departments. Labour jumped at the opportunity to cast the Conservatives as spending cutters.

Brown accused the Conservatives of being out of line with received opinion, “The only party that's proposing a cut in public spending is the Conservative party” said Gordon Brown at PMQs. What’s more, Labour proposed increased spending. (In itself, referring to public spending rather than investment is peculiar for frontbenchers.)

As it turns out Gordon Brown was being very misleading, you might even say that he was lying.

Due to the constraints placed on the treasury by the financial crisis, whoever is in government will have little choice about what to do. Both the Conservatives and Labour will do the same thing - protect healthcare expenditure and cut other departments more or less to the same amount, 10%.

The truth has come out and Brown has egg on his face. Cue George Osborne for a dose of piousness,

“The real dividing line is not ‘cut versus investment’, but honesty versus dishonest […] We should have the confidence to tell the public the truth that Britain faces a debt crisis; that real spending will have to be cut, whoever is elected; and that the bills of rising unemployment and the huge interest costs of a soaring national debt means that many government departments will face cuts in their budgets. These are statements of fact and to deny them invites ridicule.”

To the Times’ credit, they acknowledge, albeit fleetingly, that Osborne “gives no specific Conservative spending plans”.

So, is it a case of honest vs. dishonest?

Firstly, ‘honest’ should be prefixed by accidentally, reluctantly or surreptitiously, depending on which is actually the case. I would opt for accidentally given the way in which the Conservatives initially handled Lansley’s admission.

Secondly, there is more to Labour than dishonesty. As bad as Labour have been on the economy, the Conservative would have been far worse. When Brown acted swiftly to support banking when it was most needed Cameron, Osborne and Co. had little response.

Labour’s press management is appalling. Rather than the media focusing on the bold decisions made by Brown in contrast to the Conservatives' reluctance to do anything, the media are focusing on Brown’s petty lies. Labour have themselves to blame.

UPDATE

The day after this post was published Polly Toynbee offered the following advice to Labour:

Talk about the national debt honestly and turn it against the Tories. If Britain really is coming out of recession, keep telling voters the truth: virtually every penny of debt comes from rescuing the country from depression and the knock-on effect of recession. Saving banks that were hours from shutting ATMs and starving the population, then flooding the economy with money to stop a depression, was action strongly supported by the Financial Times and the Economist. The Tories – alone – opposed it and would have plunged us back to the 1930s. Most of the debt is due to recession – when tax revenues dry up and unemployment costs soar. These costs would be phenomenally higher in a long Tory-induced depression. […]

Voters know the Tories will cut with relish anything they dare, but David Cameron will win on competence if he is the only one who seems to face up to the debt. Labour has the best record on the recession and the best record on public services – but no chance if no one believes a word it says.

A few more links

David Lloyd George
Originally uploaded by Sonti Malonti

I am definitely not the first to link this, but if you have not seen it, No Sleep ‘Till Brooklands look at a recent Littlejohn article is definitely worth investigating.

Whatever your view of Conservative MP Ben Bradshaw (he’s no Kelvin Hopkins), The Telegraph’s reporting of an associated expenses story is shameful. As one commenter on Liberal Conspiracy - ‘Minister attacks Telegraph ’smear’ as ‘homophobic’’ - rightly said, “[T]here is no suggestion in that article that Bradshaw has done actually anything wrong […] The only apparent reason that the Telegraph believes Bradshaw’s claims are newsworthy, is that Bradshaw’s other half is another man. That does seem homophobic to me.”

A less impressive post from Liberal Conspiracy caught my attention. ‘MPs are paid enough already!’ I disagree, judging by the responses from commenters I am firmly in the minority.

In a peculiar turn of events, I find that The Times are echoing my views. The thought of agreeing with a Murdoch owned newspaper is quite disturbing.

MPs are doing an important job and should be paid enough that high-quality people without independent means are financially able to do it. Being an MP is a public service and should not be a way to become rich. But nor should MPs earn only an average wage. Being an MP ought surely to pay as much as a GP or a secondary school head teacher. And inevitably that means that, say, deputy head teachers or nurses will feel that their MPs are getting something that they are not. The sensible setting of MPs' pay cannot be held hostage by this sentiment, however understandable it might be. […]

The pay of MPs should be placed entirely in the hands of an outside body, insulated from the ups and downs of political opinion and concerned only with the market for professionals capable of being good legislators. […] The allowance should, therefore, be abolished and the sum incorporated into MPs' salary so that they are paid £90,000 a year. […] the correct number of MPs should be determined in a separate debate.

This pretty much expresses my views. However, I am less than comfortable with the final point.

Finally, we should not insist that MPs give up all outside interests. Some argue that such work makes them better MPs. Let this be tested. If there were primaries, allowing voters to choose among candidates for the parties, then this assertion would be judged by voters.

I may address these separate issues in more detail at later date.

Anyway, for a better argument against my own Stumbling and Mumbling look at ‘MPs' wages’ does a much better job than Liberal Conspiracy.