Friday, June 12, 2009
Are Cameron and Lansley the Only Mr 10 Per Cents?
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.
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.
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?
Links to this post: