It matters who is lying

The awful John Rentoul said yesterday that he thinks calling one's political opponent a liar is "in poor taste and, worse than that, a mistake". He argues - if that is the word - that

"name-calling makes it hard to debate and is more likely to lead to disorder and fisticuffs"

This is just the type of mindless tosh people who are stuck in the political consensus come out with. It's on a par with people who say that using "swear" words (i.e. using more words than other people) means that you have a limited vocabulary. The problem with our political debate at the moment is that politicians regularly lie through their teeth and it's considered "poor taste" or "bad form, old boy" to say to.

Rentoul says that Tory George Osborne didn't actually call Gordon Brown a liar, as billed. But, bizarrely, today's Times says that David Miliband accused Osborne of "the politics of the big lie and the big smear". No comment yet from Rentoul.

The top line of the Times story is that "Treasury officials have accused the man who could soon be their boss of implying that they had broken the law". Senior civil servants are quoted, anonymously of course, as "voicing anger" at this.

Sadly, from the coverage that I've read, I can't work out who's telling the truth. That is what matters. If Brown really did conceal plans to cut spending while making such a virtue of not doing so, it really should change the landscape of politics, as Osborne claims. But the problem isn't that someone has called someone else a liar, it is that the media like the drama of accusation and counter-accusation more than analysis of who's right and who's wrong.

Talking up the story

The Observer is leading with a terribly cobbled-together story about George Osborne being under pressure over yesterday's comments about the pound.

The shadow Chancellor was forced to defend himself after Labour aides and small business organisations accused him of talking down sterling despite a convention that politicians do not predict currency collapses. Kenneth Clarke, the man some MPs now want to replace Osborne, had to ride to his rescue, insisting his words were 'perfectly sensible'.

So Kenneth Clarke not agreeing with Osborne is a point against him? It seems the only pressure is coming from "Labour aides" and Stephen Alambritis from the Federation of Small Businesses and Labour councillor, who warned:

'It is important that politicians rally together at times like these and do not use terms like "run on the pound".'

Good point, let's not say it.

I can't find anything in the article to justify this:

'Baffled' Lib Dems join attack

Osborne has a point when he says:

behind-the-scenes spinning from the Prime Minister and his entourage in America is fuelling speculation that the government is planning to borrow recklessly for a big, unfunded tax con.

Peaking too soon

In the Independent, Andrew Grice has some fun at the expense of still shadow chancellor George Osborne, who was asked to present a Spectator award for "newcomer of the year" to Peter Mandelson. The main thrust of the piece is that many tories think Osborne is - or should be - on the way out.

The shadow Chancellor is being blamed by Tory backbenchers for a lacklustre response by the Opposition to the economic crisis. They admit it is not all his fault but he is an easier target than Mr Cameron after being damaged by the "yachtgate" affair in which he was accused of seeking a Tory donation from Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch.

But:

Despite all the rumblings, Cameron aides insist Mr Osborne will not be moved from his Treasury brief. "They are joined at the hip," said one frontbencher. A strategist added: "Nobody should underestimate how close they are. It is a very strong partnership – like Blair and Brown, but without the tensions, rivalries and rows."

Also in the Indy, Michael Brown says that Cameron should ditch Osborne. But I didn't get past the sub-headline:

If they want to be taken seriously, how about Redwood?