Respect is due: Amos Elon, 1926-2009

From his obituary in the Independent:

Amos Elon, a leading Israeli writer and historian who became increasingly disenchanted with the course taken by his country after the 1967 Six Day War, has died in Italy, his home since 2004, at the age of 82. He had leukaemia. Elon built up an unrivalled reputation in a 30-year career as a journalist on the liberal daily Haaretz, a public intellectual, and an early critic of the occupation and advocate of Palestinian self-determination. But he will probably best be remembered most for his books; an author who wrote with equal insight and scholarship about Zionism and its impact, and the assimilated pre-holocaust European jewry into which he himself had been born.

Elon was born in Vienna on 4 July 1926. His father, a businessman with a taste for adventure, left Austria for British-run Palestine two years later, bringing the rest of his family, including his young son, to join him in 1933, against the darkening background of Nazism. Elon grew up in Tel Aviv and was for three years a member of Haganah, the pre-state military which fought for Israel's independence, and after the 1948 war studied law and history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and at Cambridge. He joined Haaretz in 1951, and as a protégé of Gershom Shocken, the paper's publisher and editor-in-chief, was sent to Europe as a foreign correspondent and later for six years to Washington.

He was in his forties when he wrote the book which first made him famous. The Israelis: Founders and Sons was an early example of "revisionist" history, in which he examined critically, from an essentially left-wing Zionist perspective, the development of the Zionist project and its failure to take into account the plight of Arabs displaced by the founding of the Israeli state. "The Arabs bore no responsibility for the centuries-long suffering of Jews in Europe," he wrote. "Whatever their subsequent follies and outrages might be, the punishment of the Arabs for the sins of Europe must burden the conscience of Israelis for a long time to come." (1)

His position was not only just, it was patriotic and truly pro-Israeli. Israel will not survive if it refuses to address the massive injustice it has committed. Until it does, it will be hated, attacked and possibly destroyed. Unfortuantely, the people of Isreal seem to be listening more to the strident, intransigent ideologues, who might be viserally appealing but offer no future for Israelis or Palestinians.

1 - "Amos Elon: Writer who became disillusioned with Zionism and advocated Palestinian self-determination," obituary written by Donald MacIntyre, published in The Independent, 28th of May, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/amos-elon-writer-who-became-disillusioned-with-zionism-and-advocated-palestinian-selfdetermination-1691760.html)

Something to do in Britain, if you're mad

Tommorrow, David Irivng, the not-at-all-mad and certainly not a racist, anti-semite, holocaust denier, liar, fraud, fool or blithering idiot, will be holding a reception (1).

At this soiree, Irving will address the buring issue of the day, in his own inimitable way, discussing the question of (I am not making this up), "The Nazi leaders and Westminster - which were the more corrupt?"

I have no idea if this is genuine. If it was anyone else, I'd assume it was a piss take, but no lunacy beyond Irving. The event is advertised on his website, described as his "3.30pm Windsor Garden Party." Obviously, Iriving is comparing himself to a irrelevant, anachronistic old lady with little grasp of the real world and a distorted view of history. Which is a surprisingly accurate assessment, for Irving.

The answer to the question is, of course, "They were both more corrupt that Stalin," which may or may not be true, but demonstrates the appropriate level of respect for the question.

Irving seeks to equate the pathetic, venal money grabbing of MPs at Westminster with a regime that exterminated millions of people simply because it didn't like them. It's an elephant in the livingroom situation, only the elephant is more like a Brachiosaurus. Hitler might not have tried to bill the tax payer for his hanging baskets, but he ordered the murder of millions of people. No further debate as to whether the Nazis were 'better' in some piddling aspect is necessary.

Only a frickin' loon would entertain the comparison. Which bears out what I've already said (2) about David Irving.

1 - The event is advertised on Irving's website, http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html. It is mentioned twice on the day I viewed the webpage, 30th of May, 2009. This redundancy suggests he might, in fact, be serious.
2 - As described previosuly on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-irving-absolutely-stark-staring.html

Metiria Turei

Big cheer to the new co-leader of the Greens (1).

In an ideal world, Sue Bradford might have been recognised for her hard work and forthright attitude, but we don't live in an ideal world. If we did, Sue Bradford wouldn't have had to sacrifice her leadership ambitions to stop child beaters claiming a specious defence for their brutality. Her achievements in parliament have been substantial for a backbench MP:

She pushed through members bills securing the passage of the anti-smacking law, increasing the minimum youth wage to equal the adult minimum wage and increasing the time mothers can keep babies with them in prisons. (2)

Standing up for what she believed in made it pretty certain she could never lead the party, because it would be giving the cynical exploiters of knee jerk imbecility an easy target. Which is a refelction of the dismal state of New Zealand politics. We need more Bradfords. People like her actually make parliament important and effective.

While I was politically more in sympathy with Sue Bradford's position, the choice is a pragmatic one, and readiness work with the government , whatever its hue, has won a grudging concession on insulation from Bill English (3). Perhaps the election of Turei is a consequence of Labour's high-handed attitude towards the party when it was in power, and Labour's pretty piss-poor environemtnal and ethical policies.

Perhaps this is a parlimeantary term too soon for Turei, but the loss of Rod Donald disrupted the natural order of succession. The Green Team leaders are very young, which means they'll have to work hard to establish credibility. But lets see what they

1 - "Greens elect Metiria Turei as new co-leader," by Claire Trevett, published by the New Zealand Herald, 30th of May, 2009. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10575491)
2 - ibid.
3 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/05/budget-bill-part-2.html.

Budget Bill, part 3

Budget Bill says he's boosting Maori spending (1). We remember, something about race based funding. We don't say anything, because Budget Bill is better than the person who said that.

Budget bill wrong foots us. Budget bill tells us he's got $321 million for research, science and technology. We blink. We shake our heads. We do some sums. We look aback at Budget 08. We see Dr Cullen promising investment of $1.1 billion operating and $747.3 million capital in these areas (2). We see names like New Zealand Fast Forward Fund. R&D tax credits. We remember what happened to the tax credit. We wonder what happened to Fast Forward. We discover Budget Bill scrapped it, too (3).

We know when we're getting bilked. We admire Budget Bill's cheek. We salute his gall in nixing research projects and then reannouncing it. We wonder what happened to the millions fdifference between what was promised last year and what is promised this year. We think, maybe it is our tax cut. We look forward to that.

Budget Bill puts up money for new police officers. We think, he will need them. We think, the policies pursued by his government will mean these police will be very busy indeed. We applaude the $256 million to manage the increased number of offenders serving community sentences and improve the quality of parole and home detention management. Budget Bill says, he's got $385 million over the next four years for increased prison capacity. We remember, Michael Cullen promised us $216.3 million to replace Mount Eden. We admire Budget Bill's enthusiasm for recycling.

Budget Bill promises us more roads. We have heard this before (4). We wonder, why roads are so expensive and cycleways so cheap.

Budget Bill talks broadband. We don't think the figures are big enough.

Budget Bill talks tough. Budget Bill says, that's the end of the good news. We think, we know Budget Bill. Budget Bill is joshing us. Budget Bill still hasn't mentionedf our tax cuts.

Budget Bill says, he won't be paying anything to the Super fund.

Say what?

Budget Bill says, he won't be paying anything to the Super fund.

Budget Bill? Did you say that right?

Budget Bill says, it makes little economic sense to burden future generations with debt. Budget Bill clearly knows less about economics than we do. Bufdget Bill should know, when the market is down, you shovel more money into it. Buy up cheap. Makee money in long run. Budget Bill doesn't get this. Or maybe Budget Bill does. Maybe Budget Bill just hates Michael Cullen and wants to destroy his legacy.

We remember Budget Bill saying, he did not want to saddle future generations with the cost of short term policies. We think, he is doing just that. We say, he's creating a massive pensions gap which will wreck the economy in ten years time. There won't be any money to pay pensions with. People will have to work until they drop. People will get a pension counted out in cents. We think, is this what Budget Bill really wants.

Budget Bill says no tax cuts. Budget Bill says he can't afford them. We think, we thought you were a neo-liberal Laffer Curve junkie, Budget Bill. You thought, the best way to stimulate growth and increase tax revenue was to cut taxes.

We wail, and gnash our teeth. Though it feels like Budget Bill has just kicked them out.

Budget Bill says, this is necessary. He says, the world has moved very quickly from the best of times to the worst of times. We think, you ain't seen nothing yet, sucker. We think, should we vote NAtional for the next two decades so they have to deal with the mess they are creating?

Budget Bill says, this Government’s aspirations are for an economy that values enterprise, rewards people for effort and encourages them to get ahead. We think, he's only bloody made getting ahead a necessity. Because there won't be anything for you to retiire on if you don't grab it now.

We say, this is the Budget of Fear. Budget Bill used fear to justify his assault on the legacy of the previous administration, by presenting the worst case scenarios outlined in BEFA 2009. We say, Budget Bill has hamstrung the economy by starving it of capital to fund research and innovation. We say, Budget Bill has created a disaster-in-the-making that will play out in 20 years time.

1 - "Budget Speech," delivered by Bill English MP on the 29th of May, 2009. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2009/speech/b09-speech.pdf)
2 - "Budget Speech," delivered by Michael Cullen MP on the 22th of May, 2008. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2008/speech/b08-speech.pdf
3 - "National Quietly Dumps Two Billion Dollar Fast Forward Fund," press release by The Progessive PArty, 12th of February, 2009. Reproduced by voxy.co.nz. (http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/progressive-party-national-quietly-dumps-two-billion-dollar-fast-forward-fund/5/8810)
4 - "Hughes: Joyce Reveals His Smoke And Mirrors For Third Time," press release by the Labour Party, 19th of May, 2009. Reproduced by voxy.co.nz. (http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/hughes-joyce-reveals-his-smoke-and-mirrors-third-time/5/14418)

Budget Bill, part 2

Budget Bill says, he will consolidate the Government’s fiscal position, keep debt under control and ensure that Crown finances are properly managed (1). We read between the lines. We say, in defianace of received economic wisdom, and against the example of every other developed economy in the world, you're going to try and balance the budget during a recession. And build a cycleway.

Budget Bill says, the Government has been active in softening the sharp edges of this recession. We say, watch your metaphors, Bill. We say, you seek to blunt sharp edges, not soften them.

Budget Bill boasts that the ReStart package is already helping around 1,400 families. We remember the 1,200 who have already tasted the razor in the public service. We think they would probably have their jobs back. We don't think they'll appreciate ReStart.

Budget Bill tells us, he's fast tracking $500 million of infrastructure investment in school improvements, state housing upgrades, and roading projects. We remember him telling us he was doing this in February (2). We work out this is money allocated by the last government. We suspect he wouldn't mention old money if there was any new money to brag about.

Budget Bill says, what's important is improving the business environment and removing roadblocks to growth; investment in productive infrastructure; and improving the way government works. We think, the environment is as important as the business environment. We think, some of these roadblocks might be there for a reason. We think, there is other infrastructure that needs investment. We think, we might have different ideas about what improving the way government works. We think, Budget Bill might be speaking in code.

Budget Bill tells us, the business environment will be improved by a thorough review of government regulation. We don't like the sound of this. Budget Bill reminds us about streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act. Budget Bill says, he will change the Overseas Investment Act, review telecommunications regulation. He says, he will review a range of environmental legislation, will redesign the legislation to allow quick and efficient decisions for productive investment We put two and two together.

Budget Bill says, the process of creating regulation will be considered by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce overseen by Hon Rodney Hide, as Minister for Regulatory Reform. We choke on our drinks. We ponder Rodney Hide being in charge of regulation review. We think of new cliches to replace the fox being in charge of the henhouse. We see portends of the apoclaypse.

Budget Bill says, the next three years will see extensive investment in transport, housing and electricity transmission and generation. We say, in public transport, state housing and renewable generation. We note the absence of these adjectives. We are distrait. We think, what was he saying about streamlining regulation? We foresee coal fired power stations besmirching North Island.

Budget Bill says, he will create a National Infrastructure Unit. We say, will Rodney Hide head this as well? We see further portends of the apocalypse.

Budget Bill says, he has a plan to balance the Government’s books. Budget Bill says, we spend too much. Budget Bill scares us with figures. Budget Bill says, current projections show debt will reach 48 per cent of GDP by 2013 and 70 per cent by 2023. We are frightened. We check with Treasury's BEFU 2009 [pdf] (3). We find Bill is using the downside scenario to frighten us. We also find a caveat he overlooked - these scenarios play out "in the absence of any further response by government" (4).

Budget Bill says, we can not allow debt to accumulate on this scale. We think, it is pretty unlikely it ever would. We think, you wouldn't know that from what Budget Bill is saying. We think, Budget Bill might be being prudent. We suspect, Budget Bill is probably trying to justify his strangling of public service.

Budget Bill says, the Government’s priority will be to rebuild its finances so another
generation can cope with future recessions. Budget Bill says, this Budget starts the process of changing Government spending priorities. Budget Bill says, he has $1.45 billion a year new money for us. Budget Bill also says, he has found $500 million a year by reallocating money set aside for 'low priority' projects. We wonder what programmes were cut. We wonder how many contracts were cancelled. We wonder, how many people were made redundant. We wonder, were our priorities were the same as Budget Bill's?

Budget Bill says, here's money for health and education. We say, please sir, can we have some more?

Budget Bill says, more than 180,000 homes built before 2000 will have access to grants for insulation and clean heating over the next four years. Most households will be eligible for grants of up to $1,800 and those with Community Cards will be eligible for additional funding. We say, this is good. We wonder, what did Jeanette and Russell threaten to do to him to make him do this?

Budget Bills says, the stimulus to the building industry will provide green jobs to help cushion the effects of the recession. We say, this is true. We say, you should be doing more of this.

We say, you see, Budget Bill? Public spending can be good.

1 - "Budget Speech," delivered by Bill English MP on the 29th of May, 2009. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2009/speech/b09-speech.pdf)
2 - "Fast-tracked public projects give $500m boost," unattributed government press release, dated 11th of Febrruary, 2009. (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/fast-tracked+public+projects+give+500m+boost)
3 - "Budget & Economic Fiscal Update 2009: downside scenarios," published by Treasury, 28th of May, 2009. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/befu2009/befu09-pt2of6.pdf). I'm not able to verify where he got the figure of 70% by 2023 from, but it bears a passing resembleance to the downside figure of 76% mentioned in Treasury's DEFU 20008 (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/eff2008/eff08.pdf)
4- ibid.

Budget Bill

Budget Bill says, the Government was elected on a platform of enterprise and growth. We say, you were elected on a platform of tax cuts. We want you to tell us about the tax cuts." But Budget Bill is a tease. Budget Bill doesn't tell about the tax cuts. Budget Bill tells us about other stuff (1) & (2).

Budget Bill tells us about how his government is ambitious. Budget bill tells us he wants us to realise our aspirations. Budget Bill talks about prosperity and competitiveness. Budget Bill talks about an open economy. We say, we aspire to a sustainable economy. We aspire to worker's rights. We aspire to egalitarianism. We aspire to a cohesive society and socialist principles. We think Budget Bill may not help us with this.

Budget Bill says things are tough. We say, we knew that. We say, what about the tax cuts.

Budget Bill says, stable government is critical in a turbulent time. We wonder how pissing off the Maori Party with a supercity is creating stable government. We read between the lines. We anticipate concessions for stability.

Budget Bill says his government has managed to "cushion the immediate impact on New Zealanders and to enhance future growth." We say, say what, Bill? We say, holding big meetings with rich people is not much cop. We say, a cycleway isn't much cop. We say, getting workers to pay their own wages through taxpayer subsidy of their wages is not much cop.

We say, if you have time to consult with business about what they want, why not Aucklanders about what they want?

Budget Bill says, the economy will make the adjustments it needs. We think of a new drinking game. We drink when Budget Bill talks about "adjustment" and "efficiency." We look forward to getting very drunk.

Budget Bill wants new jobs. Budget Bill feels the pain of people who have lost their jobs. We wonder why Budget Bill has been making so many people in public service lose their jobs. We think 1,200 people have just thrown something hard at Budget Bill as he smirks at them from their TVs (3).

Budget Bill says he's fulfilling many pre-election commitments. We note the qualifier. We wonder if we're getting ourt tax cuts after all. We wonder if more things will get thrown at Budget Bill. Budget Bill talks about working with support parties. We think he's clenching his teeth. We worry about his blood pressure. We wonder what we might get. We wonder what he'll take away to make up for it.

Budget Bill says protecting the most vulnerable is a priority. We had nevetr though of the super rich as vulnerable. We hang our heads in shame at our lack of empathy with the super-rich. We are glad Budget Bill is there to look out for them.

Budget Bill says, he'll New Zealand Superannuation, benefits, student support, and Working for Families. We say, that rat you're swallowing looks pretty big, Budget Bill. We say, you look like you're choking. We say, you almost made it sound like not slashing our entitlements was a favour. We say, coming from National, it probably is. We say, gulping down the ideological rodent is probably better than sampling the contents of the bottle marked 'Electoral Poison.'

Budget Bill boasts about increasing core Crown expenditure by $3 billion. We are impressed. Then we remember Budget Bill saying, since June 2004 core Crown expenditure has risen from $41.9 billion to $63.5 billion (4). We are less impressed. We wonder how much off this increase will be left after inflation. We feel pissed ecause public services are being bashed. We comfort ourselves thinking about the tax cuts we're getting.

Budget Bill promises us better, smarter public services. We think smarter should be another buzz word in the drinking game. We drink, long and deep.

Budget bill says dramatic and indefinite increases in public debt is is unacceptable to this Government. Budget Bill does not want to saddle future generations with the cost of short term policies. We say, Budget Bill is all about the short term. We remember talk about borrowing to fund infrastructure while making tax cuts (5). We wonder if Budget Bill means what he says. We wonder if Budget Bill realises there are other costs than srivctly monetary ones. We worry about the social cost of Budget Bill's polices.

Budget Bill tealls us he's all about raising productivity, lifting economic performance and closing the income gap with Australia. We note the implied values. We worry about resource consumption. We worry about asset stripping. We worry about privatisation of SOEs. We think, if we cared so much about wages in Australia, we'd go there to live. We think we'd rather stay here, though Budget Bill is starting to make us wonder.

Budget Bill says, his Budget addresses the major economic issues facing New Zealand. We think, there's a typo there, Bill. We think you meant to say it addresses the major economic issues facing the tiny rich elite of New Zealand whose interests your party represents, while giving a two finger salute to the rest of the country

Budget Bill tells us, the global economy is sufferring the largest, most synchronised decline since the Second World War. We wonder, why is Budget Bill doing the opposite of all the other devloped economies, and reining in public spending during a recession. We think, low growth might actually be good. We think of peak oil and environmental degradation and pollution. We think Budget Bill's fixation on grwoth is the essence of short-termism.

Budget Bill complains about deficits in the government books. We laugh. We shout at him that we know this is a paper deficit. We know the Cullen fund will rebound. We know you'll take credit for it when that rebound puts the books abck in the black. And we'll crucify you over the failure to invest when the market was down.

Budget Bill complains some more about excessive borrowing. We think about borrowing to fund infrastucture while cutting taxes again, and wonder if we ca spell hypocrisy. Budget Bill complains about the current account deficit. We think that's what happens when your economy is based on exporting comodities and world commodity prices collapse.

Budget Bill complains about excessive growth of the domestic and consumption sectors of the economyand insufficient growth and investment in those parts of the economy that either export or compete with foreign producers. We remember that one of the first things Budget Bill did was scrap the Research & Development tax credit (6). We think that was an area we might have been able to compete with foreign producers. We think, Budget Bill chiding us for spending borrowed money is a bit hypocritical. We remember basic capitalist rules. We remember high consumption is important for profit. We remember low wages are important for profit. We work out there's a gap between these two ideals. We understand soaring debt.

Budget Bill says, the global recession has leant more urgency to a programme to lift productivity, build business confidence and investment and create jobs. We say, it is a golden opportunity for you to ram through radical monetarist measures to enrich the rich and beggar everyone else. We say, it's 1984 all over again. We say, without David Lange's brio but with extra Neo-liberal lunacy to make up for it.

1 - I have been reading James Ellroy. This explains the clipped style of this post. Hopefully, I'll get over it.
2 - "Budget Speech," delivered by Bill English MP on the 29th of May, 2009. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2009/speech/b09-speech.pdf)
3 - "Another 220 jobs axed under National," by Grant Robertson, released by the Labour Party, 27th of May, 2009. (http://www.labour.org.nz/news/another-220-jobs-axed-under-national)
4 - "Bill English: Since 2004 core expenditure has risen from $41.9 billion to $63.5 billion," answer to parliamentary question from Craig Foss, 3rd of April, 2009. Reproduced on interesst.co.nz(http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/04/03/bill-english-since-2004-core-expenditure-has-risen-from-419-billion-to-635-billion/)
5 - "Nats to borrow for other spending - but not tax cuts," unattributed NZPA story, published in the New Zealand Herald, 2nd of August, 2008. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10524905)
6 - "R&D credit axing draws fire," by Owen Hembry and Errol Kiong, published in the New Zealand Herald, 9th of October, 2008. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/taxation/news/article.cfm?c_id=335&objectid=10536575)

Cameron's £64,000 two finger salute to Britain

The Tory leader, David Cameron, has been making capital out of the expenses row. Never mind he's been aided by what appears to be a deliberately staged leak by tory sympathizers:

... John Wick, the former SAS officer who handed over MPs' expense claims to The Daily Telegraph, was involved in Tory fundraising, although a Tory source insisted it was "on the fringes". It is believed Mr Wick was involved in the Carlton Club political committee, which has raised more than £400,000 for the Tories since Mr Cameron became leader. (1)

We can even ignore how the press coverage - controlled by the pro-conservative Daily Telegraph - has been biased to the point that the public service the newspaper has performed has been undermined by the political use of the leaked information to smear Labour and Gordon Brown, while holding up David Cameron as a paragon (2).

After all, it is his job to make himself look good and the government look bad. And Cameron has worked hard to achieve this, making sure it looks like he is doing something. Unkind commentators - like me, for example - might say he should work hard at something, rather than just trying to create the image of industy, but we'll let that pass for the moment.

He has challenged his MPs and warned them about their claims and has taken a tough line with those making the most craw-sticking claims. Several of Tory MPs, including the long serving ex-minister Douglas Hogg and Cameron's parliamentary aide, Andrew MacKay, have agreed to stand down at the next election. Cameron has appeared to take swift and decisive action, while Brown vacillated.

Only, it is just appearance. A real hard line approach would be to demmand the MPs face reselection and possibly even trigger a byelection - this involves a delightfully silly constitutional fudge (3) - or withdraw the whip and throw the MPs out of the party. But Cameron isn't interested in punishing the cheats and frauds, he's only inteested in winning the election. His 'hardline' is a cynical exercise in image manipulation.

Which brings us to the final kick in the teeth for the long suffering British tax payer.

MPs like Hogg and McKay, or Anthony Steen or Peter Viggers, who have all agreed to stand down at the next election, will actually be paid to go. Who will pay? The tax payer:

The latest announcements take to eight the number of MPs stepping down at the next general election. Quitting then not only saves their parties from bruising by-elections but also ensures each up to £64,000 in "resettlement grant" cash, paid for by the taxpayer. (4)

Rather than risk his chances of winning the election by going through the messy business of expelling the egregious MPs, or - Heaven forbid - making them repay the money they've claimed, Cameron would rather give them MORE MONEY.

And that really is cynical, opportunistic, politics-before-principle. And, surprisingly, it makes me angrier than the expenses farce itself. Perhaps because I am British, I actually expect MPs to be corrupt, venal toe-rags. If they get away with stuff like this, it is my fault as an elector for failing to scrutinise them and to hold them to account. But to see Cameron blithely bribe his worst offenders to to slink of quietly and not make unseemly headlines, is really disgusting.

And, weirdly, this detail is tacked onto the end of a long article in the Independent, featuring the news that Brown and Blair had a meeting, because Brown's worried about losing the elction. That is not news. It's vapid personality politics - "Oh, look, things are so bad, Brown's resorted to asking Tony Blair for help!" Hundreds of thousands of pounds xtra cash being paid to the worst leeches, is news, and should be across the front page.

I could understand the Telegraph not trumpeting it - but the Independent? I'm disappointed.

1 - "Brown calls Blair in to No 10 for secret talks as crisis mounts," by Jane Merrick and Brian Brady, published in The Independent, 24th of May, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-calls-blair-in-to-no-10-for-secret-talks-as-crisis-mounts-1690125.html).
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/05/expenses-row.html
3 -Merrick and Brady, Op. Cit.
4 - 'Resignation from the British House of Commons,' wikipedia article, viewed 24th of May, 2009. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_British_House_of_Commons)

UPDATE - 24th May 2009: To my horror, I've discovered I have ben unfair to David Cameron. He had previously made efforts to get his MPs to publish their expenses (4).

In light of this new information, I have removed some of the prejorative comments in the above post, suggesting he had only become interested in expenses when it became a front page issue.

5 - "Tory MP Nicholas Winterton accuses David Cameron's 'mafia' of trying to force him out," by Rosa Prince, published in the Telegraph, 25th of July, 2008. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2455511/Tory-MP-Nicholas-Winterton-accuses-David-Camerons-mafia-of-trying-to-force-him-out.html)