The Expenses Scandal

[poliphilo]

Stephen Fry is right; the expenses scandal is trivial. It isn't like faking the evidence for a war or buggering up an economy. Besides, everyone fiddles on their expenses, don't they? If we're getting so aerated about it, it's not because we're really so shocked by these particular infringements but because those other, badder things have happened.  The intensity of the furore is a sign of how deep into injury time this government now is. Early on in the history of Nu-Labour Tony Blair could (and should) have been kicked out over the Bernie Ecclestone affair- you know, exempting Formula One from the ban on tobacco advertising at just the time that Ecclestone was making a million pound donation to party funds; that was much worse than this- but we let him get away with it because he still carried our hopes for renewal and reform. Now, it's a decade or more later, we're sick to death of these people- and we'll beat them with any stick or switch that falls into our hands. 

Comments

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Blair made a decision to stick by George Bush no matter what. A aide has said he did it to stop the Conservatives slipping in ahead of him and selling themselves as America's best friends in Europe. If true, this means we fought that misbegotten war for reasons of party politics- which is a horrible thought.

I don't think there was any compulsion for us to back America the way we did. Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam- in spite of being put under considerable pressure by LBJ- without relations between the two countries being irretrievably damaged.

Brown might have made the same call as Blair, but I think his ideological distaste for Bush and the neo-cons (he is much more of a tribal politician than Blair ever was) could have swung him the other way.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think there's much point speculating on it based on the limited information and misinformation we have access to. For us mere mortals it's just groping in the dark.
Tom F