Balls-up or what over Libya?

Ed Balls has come out to tell the listening public that "none of us wanted to see the release of al-Megrahi but that wasn't a judgement made by the British government it was a decision made by the Scottish executive." Do I believe him? It is hard to be convinced by a bunch of inveterate weasel wordsmiths such have infested what is laughingly called New Labour. More like Humpty Dumpty that Mother Theresa, I feel.

The Scottish Government came to the British Government's rescue. Ever since Blair cosied up to Gaddafi in that tent, the aim of the New Labour regime has been to do deals with Libya. Oil deals, trade deals - any deal that helps. al-Megrahi was a kind of fly in the ointment. We don't really know if he was the bomber anyway. Gaddafi might as well have serpents for hair for all the truthfulness he has been involved with. I have some sympathy with Dr Jim Swire's take on events. The fact that a Maltese shopkeeper could finger a Libyan in such a way and for it to pass the minds of Scottish judges as reliable evidence is cause for concern. But not enough concern if you've got BP executives desperate to get into that tent as well. Gordon Brown is hardly likely to want to dig up the truth. Far better a rambling set of ever-changing anwers.

So the basic conclusion is I don't believe Ed Balls. In fact, I wouldn't bother proverbially throwing him, because any distance he went would not be a suitable test for establishing the truth!

Posted in: Ed Balls