Friday, June 12, 2009


Are Cameron and Lansley the Only Mr 10 Per Cents?

Andrew Lansley suggested yesterday that Labour would have to reduce spending across the board by 10% to meet their 2011 spending targets. This created a predictable storm. I waited for Labour to refute this foul canard. The BBC News however presented a piece pointing out that, if interest rates and inflation are reduced from the spending figures and the NHS left untouched, the reductions needed to balance the books amounts to a 10% cut.

Jon Snow made the same case on his bulletin and Peter Hain on Question Time, tried to offer a rebuttal, based, I think upon the assumption the economy will revive, but he was unconvincing. Ruth Lea, a right leaning economist, but a former Treasury official was quite convincing in her explanation that the Lansley figures were correct.

Now I am very used to disbelieving Tory attacks on Labour, but I do think,in these times of opacity and spin, one should make every effort to be even handed and truthful. So far I haven't read or heard a convincing explanation that Lansley was basing his claim on Labour's own planned spending figures. Chris Huhne suggested the government, of whatever stripe in the future should level with voters, come clean and admit spending cuts are inevitable. I think I'd prefer that personally.

Seems like basic mathematics to me(most households would understand, though not Nu Labor it seems). If you are spending more than you are making, then either you have to spend less, make more or borrow more. Any attempt to say otherwise(as the cretin Hain did) is the kind lying from our political masters the British people have long grown tired of.

Hain should realise that not everyone can go out and rob a branch of Barclay's every time they need a few quid. Some of us have to work for a living.
Fair comment on the issue but have to say Hain did not rob that bank, as well you know.
Anyone reading this who doubt Hain re Barlcays robbery in 1976 should read this:
Skip the URL doesn't work. Try...

Regardless of what anyone believes on the robbery, the case is clear. He was identified. Inspite of advances in technology, the police REFUSE to reopen the case. Friends in high places and all of that. I don't know why he doesn't just own up and pay back the money. And Hain is known to have a criminal record. The judge was particularly scathing when the cretin appealed his conviction for criminal damage.

His behaviour in failing to disclose("I forgot!") 100,000GBP is a damning indictment on his character and his honesty. Again the CPS REFUSED to act on Met advice. Presumably the Met had got tired of covering his lying arse.

Rarely has such a dishonest man held high office in this country.
All this seems highly debatable to me; why ever should he want to rob a bank of a few hundred pounds?
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?