Misleading the House about Misleading the House?
In a statement today Stephen Byers tried to explain why he had misled a commons select committee about the future of railtrack. His basic case is that that the preparation of an options paper did not constitute a discussion. How naïve does he think we are? We must now presume that the options paper just “appeared” and that no discussions took place as part of the drafting process.
Am I the only one that can spot the similarities between this inadequate statement and Clinton’s now infamous interpretation of what does and does not constitute sex during the Monica Lewinsky affair?
Not surprisingly the Conservative Party are not happy with the explanation, and Alan Duncan in particular is claiming that there is evidence of meetings to discuss railtrack’s future before the select committee. It looks like Stephen Byers statement has compounded his problems?
I presume we can now expect his deceit and this weak explanation to be punished by Tony Blair. Expect a knighthood, a return to the frontbenches and a job with the EU.
Am I the only one that can spot the similarities between this inadequate statement and Clinton’s now infamous interpretation of what does and does not constitute sex during the Monica Lewinsky affair?
Not surprisingly the Conservative Party are not happy with the explanation, and Alan Duncan in particular is claiming that there is evidence of meetings to discuss railtrack’s future before the select committee. It looks like Stephen Byers statement has compounded his problems?
I presume we can now expect his deceit and this weak explanation to be punished by Tony Blair. Expect a knighthood, a return to the frontbenches and a job with the EU.
posted by Martin Curtis at 8:02 PM
2 Comments:
OK then. How about it would turn my stomach to talk to the IRA while... talking to the IRA. One John Major. I leave it to you to decide which is the more heinous offence - "lying" about talking to a bunch of murderers or "lying" about plans to close down one of the most detested companies in Britain.
Oh, and while we're at it: who was it who set up Railtrack again?
I do not believe it is right for politicians to lie "full stop".
If Byers had to lie, then it shouldn't have happened. It is interesting that since the demise of railtrack, the investment that they said was needed and which Byers has objected to has happened, with more on top.
The difficulty with John Major's situation is that they were at a very difficult stage and admitting talks were going on would have ruined everything. That said it is still difficult to support a lie - and your description of the IRA is spot on.
Byers not only lied at the time, but seems to have lied again to cover it all up.
Please do not pretend that the conduct of the Conservatives in Government was anything near as bad as the conduct we see in Blair's Britain - no Conservative ever lied to take his country to War, no Conservative would sit idly by and let the dealer of such a deceit remain as Prime Minister -but the Labour Party's obsession with power over delivery makes them impotent.
Post a Comment
<< Home