blame

we all like to play the blame game. it really is quite fun. we stand and point our fingers and say ‘your fault’. assigning blame from the trivial to the most important of things is the name of the game. yet there are times when we are (shock! horror!) are wrong (though this was never the case when my mum used to blame the dog for her farts, if only because we didn’t have one).

george osborne is not one to admit his mistakes or apologise – especially when it concerns ed balls.

i get that george osborne hates ed balls (i am sure the feeling is mutual), i get that david cameron hates ed balls (i am sure the feeling is mutual), in fact i am sure most members of parliament don’t like ed balls and i am sure he doesn’t care.

i can understand how ed balls must infuriate and annoy the con/dems sitting opposite him when he does his impression of john mccririck with his little fluttering flouncy hand gestures.

so i can see why they want to get one over him.

when the barclays libor scandal broke the conservatives were very keen to apportion blame to the previous labour government. it was their fault that there were not enough regulations in place – even though the conservatives agreed with the deregulation and wanted it to go further. still here was a chance to slap (metaphorically) that nasty mr. balls in the face.

so that is what george osborne, the chancellor, did. he took his chance and said that mr. balls had some questions to answer over the barclays rate rigging scandal.

oh what glee for the conservatives: two for the price of one. double bubble.

in the real world most of us would have shrugged our shoulders and gone: ‘nope – nothing to do with me mate’, question asked and answered.  in the world of politics it doesn’t quite work that way as the implication of mr. osborne’s assertion was that ed balls was hip deep and mired in the scandal.

so far the evidence seems to prove that mr. balls wasn’t involved and hadn’t pressurised the banks to mess with their rates.

ooops.

will george osborne apologise?

doesn’t look like it. what’s more david cameron is supporting his lack of apology.

a treasury spokesman gives a reason why there is no need for an apology by explaining “labour protests too much. can they say that no labour figure was aware of libor low-balling? can they say no labour figure implicitly or explicitly condoned it in conversations with the banks? they haven’t been able to so far.”

so much for innocent until proven guilty: labour are guilty because they have not professed their innocence. a very odd stance to take.

even so it is even odder when you consider that the claim was made against mr. balls and that seems to have been refuted. so instead of doing the decent thing the goal posts have been moved.

the thing is very few people are going to shed a tear or be concerned for mr. balls, he is more than capable of looking after himself, yet spitefulness on the part of mr. osborne and his advisors have made mr. balls look like a victim and mr. osborne a posh boy bully. if he had apologised mr. osborne not only would he have appeared to have a modicum of humility (something lacking among the senior tories who all give off that to the manor born air) he  would also have the moral high ground the next time ed. balls made like bobby crush while others were talking at the despatch box.

looks like ed balls wins.

also looks as if elton was right – sorry seems to be the hardest word.